Class Combat Balancing - The acid test

Cel · 07-26-2005, 09:02 PM

To my mind the only real criteria for saying the classes are balanced is:
If classes of the same level, using the same level of equipment/skills/spells capable of bringing down the same level of mob - then they are balanced.

When I say level of equipment I see the following as example ones:
Merchant bought equipment and AppII spells
Player crafted standard equipment and AppIV spells/skills
Player crafted rare equipment and AdeptII spells/skills
Fabled equipment and Master spells/skills

Each class (and sub-class) would then use its own skills to bring the mob down, in simplistic terms:
Fighters would stand and take a beating while hitting for moderate damage.
Priests would take a beating healing/shielding themselves whilst wearing the mob down.
Scouts would avoid damage taking fewer blows whilst delivering high damage
Mages would use root/pets/stuns etc to avoid being hit at all while using spells for damage.

I'm not talking about the level of difficulty - its irrelevant - it could be 5 levels below, but it should be consistent accross all the classes.

At the moment I see some classes taking down heroic blue/green cons whilst others struggle with standard ones of the same level (and that’s with the same level of equipment).

My 2c.

Aadar · 07-26-2005, 09:21 PM

Not going to happen, and that wouldnt be balanced either, you missed out the time component, what about a priest taking 2 minutes to kill an even con mob and a mage taking 20 seconds.

I think your desire although well intentioned somewhat misses the point anyway.

In the ideal world, when characters soloed they would xp (over the long term) at around the same rate. It doesnt matter if a warlock, when everything goes right, can solo a white heroic, if he ends up with debt the rest of the time, or has to take the long route to run to the mob without any form of help from SoW, which results over the long term in the same xp/hour.

That said, no class should be capable of easily soloing heroic mobs. Also, no two players are the same, and you just have to accept that some players ARE twice as good at playing the game than others and will get twice the xp/hour regardless of the class they are playing.

So if you take away the ability to solo heroic mobs, add a little more heroic content to encourage grouping, then it will be largely a job well done.

Why? Well because xping off solo mobs takes a lot longer, and a little extra group content will encourage a bit more grouping. When characters are grouped they all XP at exactly the same rate.

At the end of the day it really shouldnt matter to you if, say, you play a shaman that can solo xp at only half the rate a friends zerker can, what should matter to you is that you can get fun out of the game, and are not left on the bench because other players view your class as obsolete/broken.

Tockl · 07-26-2005, 09:32 PM

Even though I am an avid soloer, I really like Aadarin's take.

Ebeta · 07-26-2005, 10:12 PM

I agree with Aadarin. I would also point out that different classes have an easier/harder time with different mobs. A tank can take down a mob of 3 fighters, but that same mob woudl kill a Mage everytme. A Mage can take out a single heroic caster mob that would kill a fighter everytime etc... I know there are exceptions but you get the point.

Chath · 07-26-2005, 10:19 PM

Aadarin wrote:
Not going to happen, and that wouldnt be balanced either, you missed out the time component, what about a priest taking 2 minutes to kill an even con mob and a mage taking 20 seconds.

Agreed.

Aadarin wrote:
I think your desire although well intentioned somewhat misses the point anyway.

In the ideal world, when characters soloed they would xp (over the long term) at around the same rate. It doesnt matter if a warlock, when everything goes right, can solo a white heroic, if he ends up with debt the rest of the time, or has to take the long route to run to the mob without any form of help from SoW, which results over the long term in the same xp/hour.

That said, no class should be capable of easily soloing heroic mobs. Also, no two players are the same, and you just have to accept that some players ARE twice as good at playing the game than others and will get twice the xp/hour regardless of the class they are playing.

So if you take away the ability to solo heroic mobs, add a little more heroic content to encourage grouping, then it will be largely a job well done.

Why? Well because xping off solo mobs takes a lot longer, and a little extra group content will encourage a bit more grouping. When characters are grouped they all XP at exactly the same rate.

The whole reason for so much more solo content was precisely because the devs noted the opposite of this being the case. People weren't being "encouraged" to group; solo players were finding the game frustrating due to lack of content. Besides, with all the quests and dungeons that require groups, we are already sufficiently "encouraged" to group. I guess maybe you don't mind, but I don't like being manipulated into a specific playstyle because someone thinks it's "better" in some way. Solo is a perfectly valid playstyle.

Also, I challenge your assertion that characters, when grouped, all XP at exactly the same rate. Raw XP? Relative XP? I know, when grouped as a higher level character with lower level characters (just three or four levels), the players below me gain relative XP much faster than I do. I've watched friends gain levels in the time it took me to gain almost a full level. While I don't have the raw numbers to make my case, I'm confident you don't either.

Aadarin wrote:

At the end of the day it really shouldnt matter to you if, say, you play a shaman that can solo xp at only half the rate a friends zerker can, what should matter to you is that you can get fun out of the game, and are not left on the bench because other players view your class as obsolete/broken.

While I agree with this sentiment for myself, why is it that you feel that any way but the way you think about the game is wrong? Some folks don't agree with you -- they want to play their favored subclass, and they want to be comparable to other subclasses, which is what was promised from pre-Beta. Balance at the archetype and all that. Your "it really souldn't"'s only trolls such people, because it puts you in a "know best" situation, when really, it's about personal choice, not right or wrong.

xulEnix · 07-26-2005, 11:08 PM

The original post has some very valid concerns, and s/he never mention anyting about soloing heroic MOBS, just blue/green cons. The way I see it, no 1 player should be able to solo heroic mobs; single heroic creature yes, not those pegged as a group mob. Also, while balance is a good thing, I see that as all classes/subclasses etc that have the same equipment/spells/skills should be able to take out singles/mobs of the same level, BUT some classes will do it in a shorter time than others. The high dps ones might be able to do it about 30% faster than the lower ones, but at least everyone can handle them. Of course mage types have to be careful cause although they can kill something 10 seconds faster than a scout, if they get hit they're dead; a scout will take a little more damage, but if they don't get out fast they're also dead. SMILEY

True, no 2 players are the same, and it stands to reason and makes sense that if you solo you xp slower than being in a group. Just the fact of getting faster xp grouped should be enough incentive to do so; and there's plenty of dungeons and quests that require groups, not to mention raiding is a group thing. Having fun playing the class you want is most important, and as long as you think its comparable with the rest of the classes in the game then thats probably the best measure of balance. Again, people have to realise that some classes will progress faster than others, but thats part of that class' attributes. A level 10 monk and a level 10 predator (with all items/spells/skills equal i.e appIII spells, both have blue armor, etc) will both be able to take out the same level 10 white con single heroic, or a blue con mob of 3, but the predator will likely be waiting for the monk to finish. The tradeoff though is that the monk could pretty much guarantee he'll stay alive and finish the job with at least 1/2 to 2/3 health left, whereas the predator could end up near death or next to no health left and will have to wait to regen. SMILEY

themysterious · 07-27-2005, 06:39 AM

I don't know what the big fuss is really... I think, and hope, that these combat changes focus on fixing spells that have been overpowered/underpowered. I love alts, and have played many toons of many types through many levels. I have never really had a problem with any of them, they are different, but they are not overly unbalanced... My warlock can kill monsters twice as fast as my warden, and three times as fast as my inquisitor... My warlock dies twice as much as my warden, and three times as much as my inquisitor... My warden can run 30% faster than my warlock and my inquisitor.... My inquisitor can port himself to bind twice as often as my warden, and my warlock can invis him self.... My acid test would be as thus: Take one of each class, at 10 level intervals, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60... Take a player who has played the class often, give them the interval class and lock them in a room with the splitpaw champion... make them fight him 20 times... Do this with different players, still experience with the class (pointless otherwise)... repeat four or 5 times... If on average a class dies less than 5 times in 20, they are are overpowered. If on average a class dies more than 10 times in 20, they are underpowered. When you get all classes within that tolerance range... you have balanced SOLO class... then you have to start addressing group balance... which I am not even going to tackle. This ofcourse won't happen, not in such an organised manner... but it is fun to dream. Overall I agree some classes do have issues... but the game is not that unbalanced... and I hope it doesn't change too much!

Aadar · 07-27-2005, 11:36 AM

Chatham wrote:

The whole reason for so much more solo content was precisely because the devs noted the opposite of this being the case. People weren't being "encouraged" to group; solo players were finding the game frustrating due to lack of content. Besides, with all the quests and dungeons that require groups, we are already sufficiently "encouraged" to group. I guess maybe you don't mind, but I don't like being manipulated into a specific playstyle because someone thinks it's "better" in some way. Solo is a perfectly valid playstyle.

Also, I challenge your assertion that characters, when grouped, all XP at exactly the same rate. Raw XP? Relative XP? I know, when grouped as a higher level character with lower level characters (just three or four levels), the players below me gain relative XP much faster than I do. I've watched friends gain levels in the time it took me to gain almost a full level. While I don't have the raw numbers to make my case, I'm confident you don't either.

The overland zones were dumbed down because people wanting to solo/duo found it too hard, but even as someone who mostly duos/solos I agree with Moorguard when he said (paraphrasing) that they were looking at introducing more group content because they were dumbed down too much.

Regarding XPing at the same rate. I duo 80% of the time with my wife and I can assure you that, in my experience, it is true with warlock/wizard, monk/ranger, and zerker/illusionist. Even when one level apart, all other things being equal (debt, vitality, quest completion and getting discovery xp). Now that doesnt mean that if the characters are 4 or 5 levels apart there is not a significant difference because I dont have a lot of experience of that.

While I agree with this sentiment for myself, why is it that you feel that any way but the way you think about the game is wrong? Some folks don't agree with you -- they want to play their favored subclass, and they want to be comparable to other subclasses, which is what was promised from pre-Beta. Balance at the archetype and all that. Your "it really souldn't"'s only trolls such people, because it puts you in a "know best" situation, when really, it's about personal choice, not right or wrong.

I was stating my opinion, not trolling. My opinion is that if peoples enjoyment around the game is overly effected by their perception that some classes are easier to level than others then they are never going to be happy. Just because some Warlocks, can sometimes, when everything goes right, solo high level heroic mobs, does not mean that they are doing it all the time getting fantastic xp and no debt. Our twinked out Warlock/Wizard duo mostly plows through orange/yellow con solo mobs because it is faster xp over time, we can kill them non stop with very little chance of death, whereas we die regularly if taking on heroic mobs simply because a broken root, and a resisted stun/root will result in one of us taking the two or three hits it takes to kill us. That said, if we could find an endless supply of non-scout type green con heroic mobs outside of dungeons with zero chance of adds we migh xp off them instead, but that will happen maybe one or two levels in ten.

I agree that solo is a perfectly valid play style and I want to see it continue to be supported, but I disagree that 'we are already sufficiently "encouraged" to group' given that there is very little benefit xp or loot wise in doing so. When I play my 'solo' toons (Brigand and Sorceror)because my wife is not playing, if I solo I can get as much xp and significantly more loot and less debt than if I get into a full pick-up group, but I continue to group maybe 50% of the time I play him because it is often a fun diversion (although it can equally be frustrating as hell).

Why should people wanting to group and hunt heroic mobs be 'forced' to mostly hunt in dungeons? There needs to be a balance of content so that players soloing and players grouping feel equally valued. The content, IMO, was dumbed down a little too much. I believe many players that would enjoy grouping more often are not doing so because soloing is too easy, which means those players that want to group most of the time have a harder job getting a rewarding experience from the game.

Oh and as much as anyone thinks they know how well certain classes XP, SoE will have the numbers, and hopefully, they can balance accordingly. For instance, should they have monitored that over the long term troubadours XP, say, 25% slower than the average rate, they can ensure that the upcoming changes largely fix it, perhaps by improving their solo HOs, or changing some of their abilities. However, even if the xp rate was even across all classes there would still be people claiming it wasnt because, perhaps, they are worse players, they know less about where to hunt, they hunt in pick-up groups rather than regular groups, they are comparing untwinked with twinked, they are playing less hours, or they see a post about some class being able to solo some high heroic and assume they must be able to do it consistently in no time with zero debt, etc etc.

Message Edited by Aadarin on 07-27-2005 01:30 AM

Jor · 07-27-2005, 02:44 PM

I disagree with the original poster

Balance means... everyone should find a place/role in a group and everyone should be able to enjoy the game on solo.

Now, against the same mob, there SHOULD be differences in how different classes cope. Otherwise they would be no point of having different classes.

Some mobs should be easier for some classes. Some highly skilled, very richly equiped players could kill heroic, I appreciate that (even if *I* can't do it myself ;b ), it's a good goal for end game. It fits into heroic fantasy universe where some very rare hero perform so well.

About soloing, I have nothing wrong about having some classes better than other. That adds much diversity. Those classes, generally, are less usefull in groups, so that's balanced.

Some classes have more utility and less direct impact in fights, that's balanced too.

Cel · 07-27-2005, 04:10 PM

Thanks for the comments but I think about the only person who really got what I was getting at was xulEnix.

I never mentioned soloing heriocs (personally I dont think any single player should be able to solo any herioc higher than a grey). I also agree that different classes mob's do better against different mob types but on balance I still think that if Class A at level 20 can solo a lev 16 (solo) mob with relative ease (i.e minimal risk of dieing) then Class B should be also able to solo that level of mob as well.

I find it agrivating that people always seem to concentrate on group dynamics. Why should I, as a solo player, suffer in my ability to adventure just because Class A and Class B adventuring together is more powerfull than Class B and Class C? Your essentially saying that the balancing of groups is more important than the balancing of Classes because your play style is more important.

I accept that classes may take different times to take down that level of mob - this is essentailly because of the different roles the classes fulfill. A healer heals, therefor it will take longer to take them down. But the level of a solo instance of a dungeon should mean exactly that. The level that all chars can do that dungeon should be approximatly equal (if not in the same amount of time). A solo dungeon of level 16 should NOT mean, "Ok for fighters level 17 but mages/scouts wait till 21".

The counter argument is (ok perhaps NOT my real point of view but..):
"I like solo play. What do I care if, when my class is balanced, it means class B finds it harder to group? People who chose class B should have known that when they chose class B that they would find it harder to group and (if they prefer group play) chosen class C instead."

Group dynamics should progress from class balancing not class balancing suffering because of cross class ability missmatch within groups.

One style of play should not suffer because of another style of play.

07-26-2005, 10:19 PM	#5
Chath Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 117	Aadarin wrote: Not going to happen, and that wouldnt be balanced either, you missed out the time component, what about a priest taking 2 minutes to kill an even con mob and a mage taking 20 seconds. Agreed. Aadarin wrote: I think your desire although well intentioned somewhat misses the point anyway. In the ideal world, when characters soloed they would xp (over the long term) at around the same rate. It doesnt matter if a warlock, when everything goes right, can solo a white heroic, if he ends up with debt the rest of the time, or has to take the long route to run to the mob without any form of help from SoW, which results over the long term in the same xp/hour. That said, no class should be capable of easily soloing heroic mobs. Also, no two players are the same, and you just have to accept that some players ARE twice as good at playing the game than others and will get twice the xp/hour regardless of the class they are playing. So if you take away the ability to solo heroic mobs, add a little more heroic content to encourage grouping, then it will be largely a job well done. Why? Well because xping off solo mobs takes a lot longer, and a little extra group content will encourage a bit more grouping. When characters are grouped they all XP at exactly the same rate. The whole reason for so much more solo content was precisely because the devs noted the opposite of this being the case. People weren't being "encouraged" to group; solo players were finding the game frustrating due to lack of content. Besides, with all the quests and dungeons that require groups, we are already sufficiently "encouraged" to group. I guess maybe you don't mind, but I don't like being manipulated into a specific playstyle because someone thinks it's "better" in some way. Solo is a perfectly valid playstyle. Also, I challenge your assertion that characters, when grouped, all XP at exactly the same rate. Raw XP? Relative XP? I know, when grouped as a higher level character with lower level characters (just three or four levels), the players below me gain relative XP much faster than I do. I've watched friends gain levels in the time it took me to gain almost a full level. While I don't have the raw numbers to make my case, I'm confident you don't either. Aadarin wrote: At the end of the day it really shouldnt matter to you if, say, you play a shaman that can solo xp at only half the rate a friends zerker can, what should matter to you is that you can get fun out of the game, and are not left on the bench because other players view your class as obsolete/broken. While I agree with this sentiment for myself, why is it that you feel that any way but the way you think about the game is wrong? Some folks don't agree with you -- they want to play their favored subclass, and they want to be comparable to other subclasses, which is what was promised from pre-Beta. Balance at the archetype and all that. Your "it really souldn't"'s only trolls such people, because it puts you in a "know best" situation, when really, it's about personal choice, not right or wrong.

07-26-2005, 11:08 PM	#6
xulEnix Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 21	The original post has some very valid concerns, and s/he never mention anyting about soloing heroic MOBS, just blue/green cons. The way I see it, no 1 player should be able to solo heroic mobs; single heroic creature yes, not those pegged as a group mob. Also, while balance is a good thing, I see that as all classes/subclasses etc that have the same equipment/spells/skills should be able to take out singles/mobs of the same level, BUT some classes will do it in a shorter time than others. The high dps ones might be able to do it about 30% faster than the lower ones, but at least everyone can handle them. Of course mage types have to be careful cause although they can kill something 10 seconds faster than a scout, if they get hit they're dead; a scout will take a little more damage, but if they don't get out fast they're also dead. True, no 2 players are the same, and it stands to reason and makes sense that if you solo you xp slower than being in a group. Just the fact of getting faster xp grouped should be enough incentive to do so; and there's plenty of dungeons and quests that require groups, not to mention raiding is a group thing. Having fun playing the class you want is most important, and as long as you think its comparable with the rest of the classes in the game then thats probably the best measure of balance. Again, people have to realise that some classes will progress faster than others, but thats part of that class' attributes. A level 10 monk and a level 10 predator (with all items/spells/skills equal i.e appIII spells, both have blue armor, etc) will both be able to take out the same level 10 white con single heroic, or a blue con mob of 3, but the predator will likely be waiting for the monk to finish. The tradeoff though is that the monk could pretty much guarantee he'll stay alive and finish the job with at least 1/2 to 2/3 health left, whereas the predator could end up near death or next to no health left and will have to wait to regen.

07-27-2005, 11:36 AM	#8
Aadar Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 32	Chatham wrote: The whole reason for so much more solo content was precisely because the devs noted the opposite of this being the case. People weren't being "encouraged" to group; solo players were finding the game frustrating due to lack of content. Besides, with all the quests and dungeons that require groups, we are already sufficiently "encouraged" to group. I guess maybe you don't mind, but I don't like being manipulated into a specific playstyle because someone thinks it's "better" in some way. Solo is a perfectly valid playstyle. Also, I challenge your assertion that characters, when grouped, all XP at exactly the same rate. Raw XP? Relative XP? I know, when grouped as a higher level character with lower level characters (just three or four levels), the players below me gain relative XP much faster than I do. I've watched friends gain levels in the time it took me to gain almost a full level. While I don't have the raw numbers to make my case, I'm confident you don't either. The overland zones were dumbed down because people wanting to solo/duo found it too hard, but even as someone who mostly duos/solos I agree with Moorguard when he said (paraphrasing) that they were looking at introducing more group content because they were dumbed down too much. Regarding XPing at the same rate. I duo 80% of the time with my wife and I can assure you that, in my experience, it is true with warlock/wizard, monk/ranger, and zerker/illusionist. Even when one level apart, all other things being equal (debt, vitality, quest completion and getting discovery xp). Now that doesnt mean that if the characters are 4 or 5 levels apart there is not a significant difference because I dont have a lot of experience of that. While I agree with this sentiment for myself, why is it that you feel that any way but the way you think about the game is wrong? Some folks don't agree with you -- they want to play their favored subclass, and they want to be comparable to other subclasses, which is what was promised from pre-Beta. Balance at the archetype and all that. Your "it really souldn't"'s only trolls such people, because it puts you in a "know best" situation, when really, it's about personal choice, not right or wrong. I was stating my opinion, not trolling. My opinion is that if peoples enjoyment around the game is overly effected by their perception that some classes are easier to level than others then they are never going to be happy. Just because some Warlocks, can sometimes, when everything goes right, solo high level heroic mobs, does not mean that they are doing it all the time getting fantastic xp and no debt. Our twinked out Warlock/Wizard duo mostly plows through orange/yellow con solo mobs because it is faster xp over time, we can kill them non stop with very little chance of death, whereas we die regularly if taking on heroic mobs simply because a broken root, and a resisted stun/root will result in one of us taking the two or three hits it takes to kill us. That said, if we could find an endless supply of non-scout type green con heroic mobs outside of dungeons with zero chance of adds we migh xp off them instead, but that will happen maybe one or two levels in ten. I agree that solo is a perfectly valid play style and I want to see it continue to be supported, but I disagree that 'we are already sufficiently "encouraged" to group' given that there is very little benefit xp or loot wise in doing so. When I play my 'solo' toons (Brigand and Sorceror)because my wife is not playing, if I solo I can get as much xp and significantly more loot and less debt than if I get into a full pick-up group, but I continue to group maybe 50% of the time I play him because it is often a fun diversion (although it can equally be frustrating as hell). Why should people wanting to group and hunt heroic mobs be 'forced' to mostly hunt in dungeons? There needs to be a balance of content so that players soloing and players grouping feel equally valued. The content, IMO, was dumbed down a little too much. I believe many players that would enjoy grouping more often are not doing so because soloing is too easy, which means those players that want to group most of the time have a harder job getting a rewarding experience from the game. Oh and as much as anyone thinks they know how well certain classes XP, SoE will have the numbers, and hopefully, they can balance accordingly. For instance, should they have monitored that over the long term troubadours XP, say, 25% slower than the average rate, they can ensure that the upcoming changes largely fix it, perhaps by improving their solo HOs, or changing some of their abilities. However, even if the xp rate was even across all classes there would still be people claiming it wasnt because, perhaps, they are worse players, they know less about where to hunt, they hunt in pick-up groups rather than regular groups, they are comparing untwinked with twinked, they are playing less hours, or they see a post about some class being able to solo some high heroic and assume they must be able to do it consistently in no time with zero debt, etc etc. Message Edited by Aadarin on 07-27-2005 01:30 AM

07-26-2005, 09:02 PM	#1
Cel Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 9	To my mind the only real criteria for saying the classes are balanced is: If classes of the same level, using the same level of equipment/skills/spells capable of bringing down the same level of mob - then they are balanced. When I say level of equipment I see the following as example ones: Merchant bought equipment and AppII spells Player crafted standard equipment and AppIV spells/skills Player crafted rare equipment and AdeptII spells/skills Fabled equipment and Master spells/skills Each class (and sub-class) would then use its own skills to bring the mob down, in simplistic terms: Fighters would stand and take a beating while hitting for moderate damage. Priests would take a beating healing/shielding themselves whilst wearing the mob down. Scouts would avoid damage taking fewer blows whilst delivering high damage Mages would use root/pets/stuns etc to avoid being hit at all while using spells for damage. I'm not talking about the level of difficulty - its irrelevant - it could be 5 levels below, but it should be consistent accross all the classes. At the moment I see some classes taking down heroic blue/green cons whilst others struggle with standard ones of the same level (and that’s with the same level of equipment). My 2c.

07-26-2005, 09:21 PM	#2
Aadar Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 32	Not going to happen, and that wouldnt be balanced either, you missed out the time component, what about a priest taking 2 minutes to kill an even con mob and a mage taking 20 seconds. I think your desire although well intentioned somewhat misses the point anyway. In the ideal world, when characters soloed they would xp (over the long term) at around the same rate. It doesnt matter if a warlock, when everything goes right, can solo a white heroic, if he ends up with debt the rest of the time, or has to take the long route to run to the mob without any form of help from SoW, which results over the long term in the same xp/hour. That said, no class should be capable of easily soloing heroic mobs. Also, no two players are the same, and you just have to accept that some players ARE twice as good at playing the game than others and will get twice the xp/hour regardless of the class they are playing. So if you take away the ability to solo heroic mobs, add a little more heroic content to encourage grouping, then it will be largely a job well done. Why? Well because xping off solo mobs takes a lot longer, and a little extra group content will encourage a bit more grouping. When characters are grouped they all XP at exactly the same rate. At the end of the day it really shouldnt matter to you if, say, you play a shaman that can solo xp at only half the rate a friends zerker can, what should matter to you is that you can get fun out of the game, and are not left on the bench because other players view your class as obsolete/broken.

07-26-2005, 09:32 PM	#3
Tockl Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 96	Even though I am an avid soloer, I really like Aadarin's take.

07-26-2005, 10:12 PM	#4
Ebeta General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 60	I agree with Aadarin. I would also point out that different classes have an easier/harder time with different mobs. A tank can take down a mob of 3 fighters, but that same mob woudl kill a Mage everytme. A Mage can take out a single heroic caster mob that would kill a fighter everytime etc... I know there are exceptions but you get the point.

07-27-2005, 06:39 AM	#7
themysterious Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 41	I don't know what the big fuss is really... I think, and hope, that these combat changes focus on fixing spells that have been overpowered/underpowered. I love alts, and have played many toons of many types through many levels. I have never really had a problem with any of them, they are different, but they are not overly unbalanced... My warlock can kill monsters twice as fast as my warden, and three times as fast as my inquisitor... My warlock dies twice as much as my warden, and three times as much as my inquisitor... My warden can run 30% faster than my warlock and my inquisitor.... My inquisitor can port himself to bind twice as often as my warden, and my warlock can invis him self.... My acid test would be as thus: Take one of each class, at 10 level intervals, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60... Take a player who has played the class often, give them the interval class and lock them in a room with the splitpaw champion... make them fight him 20 times... Do this with different players, still experience with the class (pointless otherwise)... repeat four or 5 times... If on average a class dies less than 5 times in 20, they are are overpowered. If on average a class dies more than 10 times in 20, they are underpowered. When you get all classes within that tolerance range... you have balanced SOLO class... then you have to start addressing group balance... which I am not even going to tackle. This ofcourse won't happen, not in such an organised manner... but it is fun to dream. Overall I agree some classes do have issues... but the game is not that unbalanced... and I hope it doesn't change too much!

07-27-2005, 02:44 PM	#9
Jor Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 65	I disagree with the original poster Balance means... everyone should find a place/role in a group and everyone should be able to enjoy the game on solo. Now, against the same mob, there SHOULD be differences in how different classes cope. Otherwise they would be no point of having different classes. Some mobs should be easier for some classes. Some highly skilled, very richly equiped players could kill heroic, I appreciate that (even if I can't do it myself ;b ), it's a good goal for end game. It fits into heroic fantasy universe where some very rare hero perform so well. About soloing, I have nothing wrong about having some classes better than other. That adds much diversity. Those classes, generally, are less usefull in groups, so that's balanced. Some classes have more utility and less direct impact in fights, that's balanced too.

07-27-2005, 04:10 PM	#10
Cel Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 9	Thanks for the comments but I think about the only person who really got what I was getting at was xulEnix. I never mentioned soloing heriocs (personally I dont think any single player should be able to solo any herioc higher than a grey). I also agree that different classes mob's do better against different mob types but on balance I still think that if Class A at level 20 can solo a lev 16 (solo) mob with relative ease (i.e minimal risk of dieing) then Class B should be also able to solo that level of mob as well. I find it agrivating that people always seem to concentrate on group dynamics. Why should I, as a solo player, suffer in my ability to adventure just because Class A and Class B adventuring together is more powerfull than Class B and Class C? Your essentially saying that the balancing of groups is more important than the balancing of Classes because your play style is more important. I accept that classes may take different times to take down that level of mob - this is essentailly because of the different roles the classes fulfill. A healer heals, therefor it will take longer to take them down. But the level of a solo instance of a dungeon should mean exactly that. The level that all chars can do that dungeon should be approximatly equal (if not in the same amount of time). A solo dungeon of level 16 should NOT mean, "Ok for fighters level 17 but mages/scouts wait till 21". The counter argument is (ok perhaps NOT my real point of view but..): "I like solo play. What do I care if, when my class is balanced, it means class B finds it harder to group? People who chose class B should have known that when they chose class B that they would find it harder to group and (if they prefer group play) chosen class C instead." Group dynamics should progress from class balancing not class balancing suffering because of cross class ability missmatch within groups. One style of play should not suffer because of another style of play.