What does "class balance" mean to you?

[N_inja]

In the perspective of PvP warzones, I'm curious on what the communities feelings on class balance are. What to you, would it mean to be 100% balanced? Here are just some thoughts:

 

1) Every class produces the exact same amount of burst and sustained dps, and has the exact same type of CC abilities as well as buff abilities.

2) Classes are a "rock paper scissors" set up. Every class is very weak against some classes but very strong against others. Gear, skill, and CD's being equal a rock class should never be able to beat a paper class but rock can always beat scissors.

3) 1v1 isn't really a consideration at all. Each class has something unique they bring to the table. An ideal group would have 1 or more of each AC because they'd be missing something otherwise.

[Stilly]

No mmo will ever achieve balance in the eyes of the consumer. It is impossible. You'd have to somehow balance the players. A bad player can make a class that is perfectly balanced both look and feel under powered.

 

Balance is a Sasquatch. Millions see them even though they aren't there.

[LancelotOC]

I like number 1 ...bring back UO style! Edited May 25, 2012 by LancelotOC

[YanksfanJP]

Class balance to a PvP player has always meant one thing and one thing only: "If I win it's skill, if you win it's luck"

 

the average to above-average PvP'ers usually have a difficult time admitting when someone is better than them. The baddies know they're bad. The elites know when their opponent is good. It's that middle range where you see most of the complaints, and by no coincidence, most of the ignorance.

Edited May 25, 2012 by YanksfanJP

[Shivkala]

#2. Rock Paper Scissors approach with all factions having access to the exact mirrors of each.

 

Classes do have a role, group makeup and synergy should be important and have consequences when not heeded. No side should have access to anything not available to the opposing side. Animations, cool-downs, build times, base damage should be identical across factions.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Shivkala

[Niil]

In the perspective of PvP warzones, I'm curious on what the communities feelings on class balance are. What to you, would it mean to be 100% balanced? Here are just some thoughts:

 

1) Every class produces the exact same amount of burst and sustained dps, and has the exact same type of CC abilities as well as buff abilities.

2) Classes are a "rock paper scissors" set up. Every class is very weak against some classes but very strong against others. Gear, skill, and CD's being equal a rock class should never be able to beat a paper class but rock can always beat scissors.

3) 1v1 isn't really a consideration at all. Each class has something unique they bring to the table. An ideal group would have 1 or more of each AC because they'd be missing something otherwise.

 

None of those are valid options to me. It's also a rather complicated question. I'll try to sum up, to me, what makes a game balanced or not in my eyes, and this is all inclusive of gameplay (i.e. not just pvp, but pve also). Ultimately the goal should be to maintain parity at all costs, even though that parity is going to change at various points during the game. There's a threshold of what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable as far as performance.

 

1.) Classes have different strengths, weaknesses, and playstyles based upon the classes particular skillset. Some players prefer ranged, some prefer melee. Others prefer healers or tanks. There should be a diverse lineup of classes that allow various playstyles that the playerbase enjoys.

2.) Those skillsets should not enable hard counters in pvp, ultimately skill should be the deciding factor as to who wins a fight. The victor of a combat should be determined by a minigame of moves and countermoves.

3.) Balance absolutely has to be based on 1v1 and scaled up from there. Imbalances at 1v1 do not go away when you add more people. That's an excuse developers (and players, "lol I'm ur hard counter!") often cite to justify imbalance at 1v1 levels that are just as prevalent at higher numbers of combatants.

4.) Damage types (burst, sustained, instant, cast time, dots, direct) have to be balanced based upon the skillset and playstyle of a particular class, which should ultimately leads to comparable levels of performance at that particular role in both pve and pvp.

5.) Gear should improve in an RPG, but improvements in PvP gear should not be dramatic, resulting in the better geared player always winning or even winning most of the time. Again, the deciding factor should be player skill.

6.) With that gear improvement, classes should scale comparably. What is important is that classes perform their function comparably at comparable gear levels.

7.) For the threshold I mentioned, performance has to be within 5% at most at comparable gear levels. Particular situational details will impact performance (terrain, boss effects, target switching requirement, etc) but there should be a diverse array of situational details available in content (whether we're talking warzones or operations) that diversify those situationally performance altering details so that performance isn't negatively impacted in a majority of situations for any particular class (i.e. not every map should have ramps and platforms like huttball that favor ranged, not every map should be flat open terrain that favor melee).

Edited May 25, 2012 by Niil

[HurricaneXXIV]

Class balance to me means you can insert multiple classes and use different approaches to win a match.

[Lymain]

In the perspective of PvP warzones, I'm curious on what the communities feelings on class balance are. What to you, would it mean to be 100% balanced? Here are just some thoughts:

 

1) Every class produces the exact same amount of burst and sustained dps, and has the exact same type of CC abilities as well as buff abilities.

2) Classes are a "rock paper scissors" set up. Every class is very weak against some classes but very strong against others. Gear, skill, and CD's being equal a rock class should never be able to beat a paper class but rock can always beat scissors.

3) 1v1 isn't really a consideration at all. Each class has something unique they bring to the table. An ideal group would have 1 or more of each AC because they'd be missing something otherwise.

 

I think TOR was kinda aiming for a combo of all three of those principles. 1) A lot of classes have similar abilities, and some abilities are shared between classes (CC breaker). 2) White/Yellow and Elemental/Energy damage against tanks is a good example of rock/paper/scissors balance. 3) If you're lacking a tank, healer, or DPS, you're at a disadvantage.

[DarkSaberMaster]

In the perspective of PvP warzones, I'm curious on what the communities feelings on class balance are. What to you, would it mean to be 100% balanced? Here are just some thoughts:

 

1) Every class produces the exact same amount of burst and sustained dps, and has the exact same type of CC abilities as well as buff abilities.

2) Classes are a "rock paper scissors" set up. Every class is very weak against some classes but very strong against others. Gear, skill, and CD's being equal a rock class should never be able to beat a paper class but rock can always beat scissors.

3) 1v1 isn't really a consideration at all. Each class has something unique they bring to the table. An ideal group would have 1 or more of each AC because they'd be missing something otherwise.

 

For me? Number one would be the only way to have true class balance. That way there could never be the argument of, "They beat me because such and such ability, skill, weapon, armor etc. is overpowered!! Nerf them!!!!" It would come down to skill of the player, internet connection and computer system they are running. That's great for a FPS. But would make for a very boring MMO.

[Winkywinky]

thing is that you can have 1 class always KO another class but live with 1 hp and it will be balanced during testing..

 

when you are trying for class balance you are not looking for 50/50 you are looking at how close the fight really is because players skill and reaction time make the difference..

[Ahhmyface]

There's no such thing as balance. Just like you can't really balance an orange and an apple. You can isolate one measurement, but that won't tell you anything about the whole. You also cannot abstract away the player. Perhaps the worst class is just the worst played class, and it's actually the best class? If one guy learns the secrets and kills everyone, does bioware nerf the class? What if somebody dies 100 times a warzone but wins every time? Ask yourselves these questions, you will see why there is no such thing as balance.

 

I'll give you some protips: Bioware doesn't care about balance. They care about player enjoyment, and class populations.

[Vishmaw]

To me it means that every class should have a role i and that they should all be roughly equal in performing said role when compared to other competing classes. No one should ever feel that they are detriment to their team because they are playing the class they want to play and not the "best" class. It is most likely impossible to ever achieve true balance but it is possible to make it so that the imbalances are so minor that they do not seriously affect people's decisions on what class to play.

[N_inja]

These are really good replies, thanks

[sauerkraut]

Class balance to a PvP player has always meant one thing and one thing only: "If I win it's skill, if you win it's luck"

 

the average to above-average PvP'ers usually have a difficult time admitting when someone is better than them. The baddies know they're bad. The elites know when their opponent is good. It's that middle range where you see most of the complaints, and by no coincidence, most of the ignorance.

 

True, did you noticed that rebs are the ones always complain, especially sages and troopers. Some idiot even thinks healers should be able to out heal DPS classes.

[Ghamsar]

Class balance to me is the ability to counter. Not necessarily each and every skill at all times tho...but if i want to create a build that will counter a FOTM build, i should be able to.

 

IE: Too Many Stealth Operatives... then each other class would have points and then spec into stealth detection ,quick KB's,PBAOE.......until the # of Stealth OPs drops.

 

The issue here is pigeon holes.....just as the Stealth Operative doesn't have much to respec into (dots or heal)...people can't respec to counter him.......so people HAVE TO B & M to get Operatives Nerfed.....which just causes unsubs and QQ threads versus...."what's a good sage build to counter Operatives?"

 

thus yielding the state of the current game

 

PS: Rift had more options of respec but failed in properly calculating build synergy spikes which left things OP/unbalanced when I left

[HelinCarnate]

You could give everyone 10 hp with no resists and have every power hit instant cast for exaclty 1 point of damage, give everyone heals that heal for 1 point of damage, get rid of all CC, get rid of all stealth, get rid of all buffs and debuffs including stims and medpacs, and give all powers a range of 50m and people would still complain about balance.

 

There would also be a group that would consistantly win under those rules and those that would consistantly lose. Because of the different skills of players, you can never truly have balance.

 

 

 

 

 

+1 point if you were figuring out how you could coordinate and spike targets under that ruleset.