What do you think "Balance" actually means?

[The_Grand_Nagus]

On every MMO forum people talk/argue/debate about class balance. But not everyone has the same understanding or opinion of what that word actually means. Some folks say that balance means that each class should stand an approximately equal chance of defeating each other class 1 on 1. Other folks say that balance means "rock, paper, scissors", meaning that each class can be beaten by some other class, but not necessarily every other class.

 

What do you think "balance" actually means?

[VitalityPrime]

On every MMO forum people talk/argue/debate about class balance. But not everyone has the same understanding or opinion of what that word actually means. Some folks say that balance means that each class should stand an approximately equal chance of defeating each other class 1 on 1. Other folks say that balance means "rock, paper, scissors", meaning that each class can be beaten by some other class, but not necessarily every other class.

 

What do you think "balance" actually means?

 

What you're asking is "how would you balance the game"...not "what do you think balance actually means".

 

Anyways. I personally prefer the "each class should stand an approximately equal chance of defeating each other class 1 on 1" route.

 

Each class should obviously have their own playstyle and tactics...but using said playstyle and tactics should give you an appoximately equal chance of defeating each other class 1 on 1. (assuming all else is equal)

[Elly_Dawn]

i'd have to go with the RPS version because if every class could stand against every other class perfectly then what would be the point of the trinity system, what would be the point of utility classes like Shadow/Assassin?.. where would the fun be in having every class near identical?..

[chuixupu]

I remember at Blizzcon one time, someone on stage, probably Ghostcrawler, I don't remember for sure, ask "how many people in the room think a class is OP?" Everyone in the room raised their hand. Then he asked, "How many people think the class they play is OP?" Nobody raised their hand.

 

If this was either entirely PVP or entirely PVE game, it would be a lot easier to balance. But classes can be either very powerful for PVP and weaker in PVE or vice versa.

 

I also think balancing for PVE only is much more simple.

 

I think most people want a team to not have a bias against their class. A lot of that ends up being exaggeration, but there are a couple of classes that you really can't ignore the disparity, even if it isn't necessarily a game breaking thing.

[LordArtemis]

The proper definition, or more accurately the most common definition of balance is 1V1 = 1=1 IMO.

 

True balance, or proper balance IMO is rock, paper, scissors however. You should always have a bane and boon class if you want real PVP. One class will always be slightly better, one class slightly inferior to yours.

[LordArtemis]

I remember at Blizzcon one time, someone on stage, probably Ghostcrawler, I don't remember for sure, ask "how many people in the room think a class is OP?" Everyone in the room raised their hand. Then he asked, "How many people think the class they play is OP?" Nobody raise their hand.

 

Oooh, I like that. That's a good one.

[AlienEyeTX]

i'd have to go with the RPS version because if every class could stand against every other class perfectly then what would be the point of the trinity system, what would be the point of utility classes like Shadow/Assassin?.. where would the fun be in having every class near identical?..

 

They wouldn't be identical. It just means that properly-played character of any class would have a reasonable chance to defeat a properly played character of any other class. That makes sense to me. If I encountered someone in the open, one-on-one, it would really suck to know that I'm about to get squashed just because the person I come across is a sentinel and I am an operative (for example). Having "equal" balance makes all of the classes fun to play. Just play well and you have every chance at success.

[VitalityPrime]

i'd have to go with the RPS version because if every class could stand against every other class perfectly then what would be the point of the trinity system, what would be the point of utility classes like Shadow/Assassin?.. where would the fun be in having every class near identical?..

 

I think you're confusing "having an equal chance to defeat each other" with being "near identical".

 

Just because two classes can potentially defeat each other one on one...doesn't mean everything would be the exact same.

 

The playstyles and tactics are completely different for each class...for the most part.

 

My point is that each class should equal out when you look at strength/weakness.

 

Meaning that through strategy and tactics...you should be able to offset your weakness with your strengths...while fighting one on one.

 

Not sure how the trinity comes into play when talking about one on one...but anyways...the trinity is still useful...because it allows each player to focus purely on their strengths.

[AlienEyeTX]

The trinity is still useful...because it allows each player to focus purely on their strengths.

 

Exactly.

[Elly_Dawn]

Not sure how the trinity comes into play when talking about one on one...but anyways...the trinity is still useful...because it allows each player to focus purely on their strengths.

 

lol, that's exactly it, the trinity system comes into play because of the 2nd M in MMORPG, i'm looking at this from a multi-player cooperative game point of view, though... if i were to suddenly go competitive play-style i'd still say the RPS system cause it's still a multi-player game after all, which in my opinion means teams not solo... there should always be someone that can beat you just as there should always be someone you can beat...thus RPS works in my opinion...

[LordArtemis]

I do not agree that equal = fun.

 

I think defeating a class that is slightly superior to yours is my definition of fun.

[VitalityPrime]

lol, that's exactly it, the trinity system comes into play because of the 2nd M in MMORPG, i'm looking at this from a multi-player cooperative game point of view, though... if i were to suddenly go competitive play-style i'd still say the RPS system cause it's still a multi-player game after all, which in my opinion means teams not solo... there should always be someone that can beat you just as there should always be someone you can beat...thus RPS works in my opinion...

 

I agree...but that should be based on player skill...not simply because they picked a certain class.

[LordArtemis]

IMO Rock, Paper, Scissors....all things being equal....is the best way to handle PVP. That means that if all things are equal you would have a tough time against one class and an easy time against another.

 

The advantage or disadvantage would not be substantial....but would be amplified by skill.

 

So if you are a skilled player within your class, and the "bane" class is inferior to your skill, you would be able to beat them. You would absolutely obliterate someone like that if they were in your "boon" class.

[dipstik]

sustained dps within 5% of mean. 5 min script

burst dps within 10% of mean. 15-30 sec fight.

time to kill within 10% for similar class, neglecting channeled and cast heals

time to die within 10% for similar class, neglecting channeled and cast heals

 

qualitative pros and cons balanced such that a rich metagame exists.

[Elhanan]

Depends on the game and environment. Here, I would say it should be layered with both PvE and PvP in mind.

 

Sadly, I believe the PvE players such as myself suffer the nerfing effect of things when PvP balance is addressed, as well as suffering the NPC buffs that can occur for the same reasons. It feels like someone sliding the Difficulty upward on your game without informed consent; not always the best experience possible.

[Devrius]

I really hope SWTOR is never completely balanced, why you ask? I don't want to play Gauntlet with lighsabers... "Blue Jedi needs food!"

 

Pure dps classes (classes that can't spec tank or healer) should out dps those that have tank/healer skill and can spec for those and so on...

 

Can the margin of difference be diminished? Sure, just make sure the tank classes are still the best tanks and dps classes out dps the others.

[midianlord]

Nerf into complete uselessness every class but mine, because I'm a bad who can't learn how to counter/kill/avoid them.

 

Stop looking at me like that, you know it's true!

 

[/cynicism]

[jedip_enguin]

PvP balance at a 1v1 class level is an unatainable goal within MMIO's

 

No matter how many adjustments you make you will never acheive perfect parity.

 

If people want perfect 1v1 balance where the outcome is decided entirely by player skill they need to play an FPS.

[Gomla]

How would I balance classes....

 

I'd make everyone level 1 and give them a stick that did 1 dps.

[mmjarec]

Class balance means everyone is relatively powered. If one class lacks sething like armor it should be made up for with offense if its an offense class

[LordArtemis]

PvP balance at a 1v1 class level is an unatainable goal within MMIO's

 

No matter how many adjustments you make you will never acheive perfect parity.

 

If people want perfect 1v1 balance where the outcome is decided entirely by player skill they need to play an FPS.

 

Actually, FPS generally uses the RPS balancing scheme, and relies entirely on player skill. Usually you have a class that is superior to yours and one that is weaker than you in most FPS games.

 

Funny thing is, at least according to online studies, as much as 60 percent of the former hardcore market has moved on to console shooters and RPGs...they are no longer part of the market. And that number continues to grow, as the hardcore community shrinks the casual community expands.

 

One of the reasons F2P/hybrid systems are now becoming more prevalent in this market.

[Andryah]

The proper definition, or more accurately the most common definition of balance is 1V1 = 1=1 IMO.

 

True balance, or proper balance IMO is rock, paper, scissors however. You should always have a bane and boon class if you want real PVP. One class will always be slightly better, one class slightly inferior to yours.

 

Yeah, many PvPers want balance centered around 1:1. I disagree with that approach. Almost all MMO dev teams disagree with it as well.

 

Whatever the core group size is for an MMO.. in this case it's 4 (driven by the PvE side of non OPs play) that is the center point of balance IMO. 8v8 warzones could be argued as the proper centerpoint for PvP.. but PvP is not the only consideration in this MMO either.

 

Now.. even with a small number like 4 vs 4 it's not simple and not trivial to achieve a sense of balance that players will ever agree with. This is the unicorn effect (players will never broadly agree on any balance calculus), which is why it remains in the hands of the developers which are the only people looking at the big picture for an MMO. Players are loose coalitions of special interests.. and players generally only care about themselves.

 

At the end of the day, balance is a fluid term in MMOs. and always will be. Best we as players can do in a forum discussion is to morph it into a stump to water back and forth.

 

Rock paper scissors is fundamentally a better approach IMO. Not easy, but still the better approach.

[LordArtemis]

Yeah, many PvPers want balance centered around 1:1. I disagree with that approach. Almost all MMO dev teams disagree with it as well.

 

Whatever the core group size is for an MMO.. in this case it's 4 (driven by the PvE side of non OPs play) that is the center point of balance IMO. 8v8 warzones could be argued as the proper centerpoint for PvP.. but PvP is not the only consideration in this MMO either.

 

Now.. even with a small number like 4 vs 4 it's not simple and not trivial to achieve a sense of balance that players will ever agree with. This is the unicorn effect (players will never broadly agree on any balance calculus), which is why it remains in the hands of the developers which are the only people looking at the big picture for an MMO. Players are loose coalitions of special interests.. and players generally only care about themselves.

 

At the end of the day, balance is a fluid term in MMOs. and always will be. Best we as players can do in a forum discussion is to morph it into a stump to water back and forth.

 

Rock paper scissors is fundamentally a better approach IMO. Not easy, but still the better approach.

 

I agree. And I personally have struggled with the "self interested point of view" approach when it comes to PVP, which I have had little exposure to in this game. I found it too easy myself...2 huttball matches and I was finished with it.

 

I have tried to be fair to the PVP community when making my suggestions...but they still get tainted by my past and current PVP experiences. I love PVP...but not here.

[CosmicKat]

Balance should mean that every class is fun to play at the role they are designed for. Balance should also mean that any class will offer something that a mixed group of classes needs.

 

Today's MMO players apparently want to solo primarily though, and making all classes "balanced" for solo play just means that they want all classes to be generic Jack-of-all-trades, whether they realize it or not.

 

Balanced PvP is Doom or Duke Nukem. Nobody will ever be able to balance varied classes for PvP and it's a waste of time to try.

[jedip_enguin]

Actually, FPS generally uses the RPS balancing scheme, and relies entirely on player skill. Usually you have a class that is superior to yours and one that is weaker than you in most FPS games.

 

When I say FPS, I mean the old school level playing field team deathmatch stalwarts like Quake/UT/CS rather than stuff like Team Fortress or Planetside, obviously as asoon as you introduce 'classes' (for want of a better word) all bets are off.