Balance

Gorwe · June 2021

I'm interested in how you understand this term. So I don't influence results, let's get onto it. Just a thing. While the main two options are obviously related, please treat them as individual entities because this is about how you usually perceive "balance".

Tamanous · June 2021

The application of balance is far too specific to each application to define in a single sense. Balance is weighed against the overall vision and scope of the game and must be defined prior to application and only applicable to that application.

iixviiiix · June 2021

What type of balance you are talking about ?

moving balance like bicycle or scales balance ?

Iselin · June 2021

I don't think balance in terms of player classes or player builds should be about any kind of equality. It should be about being able to do the game content or have a fair chance in PvP. I actually take pride in being competitive playing a build that is less than the current meta.

Equality is boring and leads to homogenous builds that all feel more or less the same.

Having the tools to get the job done is all I look for in game balance.

Cryomatrix · June 2021

I always thought classes within a role should be close to balanced but roles should not be.

If a role is for dps, they should be relatively balanced. But a support role shouldnt be balanced with another role.

But they key is to make all the roles interdependent.

Sort of like how team sports have different roles but all are necessary at certain times and yes, some roles are more important.

Scot · June 2021

I assume this is about PvP, balance is what you aim for but never achieve. As long as the imbalance is not more than marginal that is liveable.

Gorwe · June 2021

Iselin said:

I don't think balance in terms of player classes or player builds should be about any kind of equality. It should be about being able to do the game content or have a fair chance in PvP. I actually take pride in being competitive playing a build that is less than the current meta.

Equality is boring and leads to homogenous builds that all feel more or less the same.

Having the tools to get the job done is all I look for in game balance.

What you just described is option #2. Equality of viability refers to things being equally viable in the end. What that means is that a class might SUCK at one activity, but ROCK at another. Equality of viability can be associated with the concept of "Hard Counters" in RTS game design. Who cares if a class can't do a if it's meant to do b and c. The same applies to skills as well. Equality of numbers is self-evident, in that case all dps classes should have +-2.5% dps. It's by far less utilitarian and corresponds to "Soft Counter" game design.

Scot said:

I assume this is about PvP, balance is what you aim for but never achieve. As long as the imbalance is not more than marginal that is liveable.

It is telling in itself that you not only chose PvP(balance in all its forms is also important for PvE), but also zeroed in on the numbers part. Who cares if a class is extra vulnerable or has a generally meh average dps IF in a certain group combo it gets completely broken OP(remember WAR's Bright Wizards?). I mean, that's clearly imbalanced on both criteria, but...I just wanted to point out that a group combo also matters. My examples ARE ancient, but things like Taric + Graves or Nunu + Caitlyn in LoL. Especially the latter example. Individually both are /meh, but together? Holy shit, that's scary!

Scot · June 2021

Gorwe said:

Iselin said:

I don't think balance in terms of player classes or player builds should be about any kind of equality. It should be about being able to do the game content or have a fair chance in PvP. I actually take pride in being competitive playing a build that is less than the current meta.

Equality is boring and leads to homogenous builds that all feel more or less the same.

Having the tools to get the job done is all I look for in game balance.

What you just described is option #2. Equality of viability refers to things being equally viable in the end. What that means is that a class might SUCK at one activity, but ROCK at another. Equality of viability can be associated with the concept of "Hard Counters" in RTS game design. Who cares if a class can't do a if it's meant to do b and c. The same applies to skills as well. Equality of numbers is self-evident, in that case all dps classes should have +-2.5% dps. It's by far less utilitarian and corresponds to "Soft Counter" game design.

Scot said:

I assume this is about PvP, balance is what you aim for but never achieve. As long as the imbalance is not more than marginal that is liveable.

It is telling in itself that you not only chose PvP(balance in all its forms is also important for PvE), but also zeroed in on the numbers part. Who cares if a class is extra vulnerable or has a generally meh average dps IF in a certain group combo it gets completely broken OP(remember WAR's Bright Wizards?). I mean, that's clearly imbalanced on both criteria, but...I just wanted to point out that a group combo also matters. My examples ARE ancient, but things like Taric + Graves or Nunu + Caitlyn in LoL. Especially the latter example. Individually both are /meh, but together? Holy shit, that's scary!

Group combinations are very difficult to control, unless this is some sort of set scenario which controls the number of each class. The complexity there really spices gameplay up but if there are issues it is going to be in the main during PvP. I am all for such complexity in gameplay, but the more you have likes this the harder balance is. Something of a trade of.

Nanfoodle · June 2021

I dont think classes should all be equal, this makes classes a homogenized experience and at that point, does it matter what class you pick. I think every class should shine at something, to be top dog at CC, DoTs, AoE, Debuffs, to the point it unbalanced. And each class should be really bad at other areas. This makes people depend on other people to get things done in the game. Im sick of the any class will do to fill X hole in the group kinda games.

Scorchien · June 2021

The most fun ive had in any games are games that are not balanced ..

UO

SWG

Asherons Call

Anarchy Online

Shadowbane

Rift

DAoC etc..

All imbalanced .. all the best fun ..

Balance equals boring predictable builds and gameplay ..

Diverse builds and options make a game and the challenges presented much more interesting imo

cameltosis · June 2021

I would have selected "other", but polls on this website never seem to work for me anymore.

I think I would describe balance as when the outcome of a given situation is determined by player skill, rather than anything else.

Designing a game where every situation is balanced in this way is impossible. But there are certain ways to design a game to move it closer to this situation. You just have to make a choice as to where you want the most balance to be present, and where you can let it slide.

I think ultimately the feeling of being balanced is all about our sense of fairness. I don't really think it's about winning or losing, but that the outcome is in someway fair.

If we lose because we played badly, that feels fair. If we lose because our class lacks certain abilities, or because the other team had more people, or because our gear isn't good enough, well, then it starts to feel unfair because those things are out of our control.

Gorwe · June 2021

Nanfoodle said:

Scorchien said:

The most fun ive had in any games are games that are not balanced ..

UO

SWG

Asherons Call

Anarchy Online

Shadowbane

Rift

DAoC etc..

      All imbalanced .. all the best fun ..

Balance equals boring predictable builds and gameplay ..

   Diverse builds and options make a game and the challenges presented much more interesting imo



I dont think classes should all be equal, this makes classes a homogenized experience and at that point, does it matter what class you pick. I think every class should shine at something, to be top dog at CC, DoTs, AoE, Debuffs, to the point it unbalanced. And each class should be really bad at other areas. This makes people depend on other people to get things done in the game. Im sick of the any class will do to fill X hole in the group kinda games.

Both of these are leaning towards the option #2. Of classes having their niches and trading some other niche for that one.

As long as a thing is viable and has a niche it is (very) good at, I don't need numerical equality. In fact, numerical equality often stifles game design. Imo.

Nanfoodle · June 2021

Gorwe said:

Nanfoodle said:

Scorchien said:

The most fun ive had in any games are games that are not balanced ..

UO

SWG

Asherons Call

Anarchy Online

Shadowbane

Rift

DAoC etc..

      All imbalanced .. all the best fun ..

Balance equals boring predictable builds and gameplay ..

   Diverse builds and options make a game and the challenges presented much more interesting imo



I dont think classes should all be equal, this makes classes a homogenized experience and at that point, does it matter what class you pick. I think every class should shine at something, to be top dog at CC, DoTs, AoE, Debuffs, to the point it unbalanced. And each class should be really bad at other areas. This makes people depend on other people to get things done in the game. Im sick of the any class will do to fill X hole in the group kinda games.

Both of these are leaning towards the option #2. Of classes having their niches and trading some other niche for that one.

As long as a thing is viable and has a niche it is (very) good at, I don't need numerical equality. In fact, numerical equality often stifles game design. Imo.

I would have voted but for some reason polls dont work for me on this site any more as well. I dont know why.

Gorwe · June 2021

Nanfoodle said:

Gorwe said:

Nanfoodle said:

Scorchien said:

The most fun ive had in any games are games that are not balanced ..

UO

SWG

Asherons Call

Anarchy Online

Shadowbane

Rift

DAoC etc..

      All imbalanced .. all the best fun ..

Balance equals boring predictable builds and gameplay ..

   Diverse builds and options make a game and the challenges presented much more interesting imo



I dont think classes should all be equal, this makes classes a homogenized experience and at that point, does it matter what class you pick. I think every class should shine at something, to be top dog at CC, DoTs, AoE, Debuffs, to the point it unbalanced. And each class should be really bad at other areas. This makes people depend on other people to get things done in the game. Im sick of the any class will do to fill X hole in the group kinda games.

Both of these are leaning towards the option #2. Of classes having their niches and trading some other niche for that one.

As long as a thing is viable and has a niche it is (very) good at, I don't need numerical equality. In fact, numerical equality often stifles game design. Imo.

I would have voted but for some reason polls dont work for me on this site any more as well. I dont know why.

Who knows. I might've phrased it better too. Meh, not everything can be perfect. Thank you for your input though.

AlBQuirky · June 2021

cameltosis said:

I would have selected "other", but polls on this website never seem to work for me anymore.

Same for me. Polls do not work right for me. I read the choices but not "radial buttons" in which to vote

===================================================

I think "balance" is over emphasized. What is nifty about RPGs are the imbalances in the game. I want the characters I create in a game to be different and give me a different experience.

I use the original (my?) trilogy of Tank, Crowd Control (CC), and Healing. I think everyone should be damage dealers. I could never get the hang of tanks but had great fun with CC and Healing.

The tough part is when you're not in a group, maybe just out hunting for crafting mats or some such activity. Without good DPS, you're up the proverbial creek without a paddle if you run into trouble. Everyone should have some kind of good DPS attacks.

I really enjoyed EQ1's beginning game. 16 classes and 16 races, most with their own starting areas. Such variety! Males and Females were not some androgynous mishmash, not all races could be all classes, and you got starting points to divvy up as you pleased, for better or worse

Later on in the game, those early decisions don't matter too much because you could counter bad choices with gear. If you wanted, you could easily min/max, as many players did.

I like MMORPGs that allow me to play my character with a backstory. Maybe they don't want "the best armor or weapon" in the game. Maybe, they prefer a lesser example to fit their backstory instead of chasing numbers, though there is nothing "wrong" with that.

Overall, I'm in agreement with Iselin, above.

Scot · June 2021

We have already long passed point where the toons in a FPS or co-op game have more differences between them than the avatars in an average MMO. MMOs are taking on the worst of what I think of as dumbed down 'arcade playstyle' while other genres which come more from an "arcade" background show MMOs what we are missing!

Ungood · June 2021

For me:

Balance is about Viability.

Now, this means, having choices in your build, and still being viable in the game. One of the things that really irks me about modern games is that make these convoluted systems were they present a bunch of options, but only one is actually any good. So the question then becomes why waste dev time on making other options. Seems pointless and stupid if you ask me.

As I see if the game is really only going to give you one good choice, and the other options are just worse choices, and in some cases, really gimp level bad options, they might as well remove the other BS and give you a premade, Like, how some of these Arena games work, or games like Genshin Impact, where they give you premade characters to play.

For example, if I want to make an Illusion focused caster, I should be still viable, and the game really should not give me illusion focus, if I'm gonna suck to the power of 10, in contrast to someone that took evocation focus. Why even bother wasting the time putting this in, if it that worthless.

This is a huge gripe of mine, where games are like "You have over 2000 Combinations" but in reality 1999 of them totally suck and you are better off looking up the meta and just doing that, because, they really have no fucking clue what they doing or how to balance this game to really give you more than 2 choices and still be viable.

If you are going to put in the time, for example, to make 3 core disciplines for the Healer class, it should not be too much to ask that all 3 of them are actually viable as healers, as opposed to one is viable and the other 2 options are total worthless shit, leaving everyone around you wondering WTF dude.

Same holds true for races, it should not be "This race makes the best healer and everyone else is shit"

This really kills a game for me, because a huge part of what I enjoy about playing these MMO's is being able to build characters that can be fun, or maybe have a flavor or theme about them, and they are still viable in the game, and most MMO's, that is simply not the way they are set up.

When a deviation from meta can cost you 10x your damage output, that is just ridiculous, or making it so your healing is only doing 30% of what a meta could do, that is just a total waste of making anything outside the meta.

I legit do not know how people can find that fun. Like EQ1's cookie cutter builds.

For me, if I make a Warrior, and you give me the option to use a Great Axe, Dual Swords, or a Spear, all of them should be viable options, the Dual Swords should not be a suck ass option that inherently does 50% less damage than the axe and 30% less than the spear, with half the reach, and no stun ability.

If I make a Gnome or a Half Giant, I should still be able to build a viable warrior, perhaps the gnome needs to play a speed game vs the half giants raw power, but at the end of the day, I can make a viable build with ether race. Hell, maybe I can make a gnome that uses a great axe and plays that raw power game, and still make it work, that would be fun as hell.

I know in DDO, we had guild of people that were only Halflings, and were a scary squad a psycho playing every class you could think of, and kicking ass in the process. There was also a guild of just Warforged as well, and they would go around calling everyone fleshbags, and meatsacks.. fun role play guild kinda, and they made kick ass builds of every class you could think of.

So for me, when I think of a well balanced game, it means, that you have actual viable choices, maybe not every single combo will be viable and obviously with a lot of choices, you can in fact gimp yourself, but, overall, there should be a lot of freedom to make something that you will find fun, and still be viable to play.

That is my feels.

I know modern games suck big fat hairy balls at this, so I don't even try with them anymore, I just look up the meta and roll that, and they may as well give me a premade. if I don't like what the meta is, chances are, I won't play the game.

To get that, There is a better than good chance I will not be lasting in Crowfall, as the Meta for a harvester is Guinecean Duelist, and I think that gerbil race is ugly, but it's meta, so if I want to play a harvester, that is what I will need to play.. so I am disinclined to do that. Centaurs make the best healers, and.. they don't thrill me.. so.. while I will no doubt play for a bit.. I am not feeling this as a long term game for me, simply because the meta is unappalling, and like most modern games, not playing meta carries with it a hefty decline in viability in task.

That is why balance in the viable sense is important to me, it means I actually have a choice, not some illusion where there is the right choice and a bunch of other worthless shit.

Again.. My feels.

Howdy, Stranger!

Balance

Comments

Balance is about Viability.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Balance

Comments

Balance is about Viability.