Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
kino

Archtypes Will Not Balanced?

Recommended Posts

I'll be honest, this concerns me a little. Yes it's important to have players be able to customize their characters and finds what suits them, but in my opinion, balance is very important. If there's no balance, there will be a strongest. If there's a strongest, people will only play the strongest. If people only play the strongest, everything else will never be played. People will find the strongest Archetype and strongest Promotion Class and strongest Disciplines and strongest stats and attributes and then everyone will play that exact thing because it's the strongest. By not having balance and having a "strongest character" there will be cookie cutter builds because cookie cutter builds work, that's why everyone plays them. 

 

Take games like ArcheAge, which allowed players to be 120 different "classes" due to the combination of three skill trees. How many of those classes were viable? Not many. How many were the strongest? Like five. I saw the same classes over and over again because they were the strongest and there was no balance. Everyone had the same skills and same passives and same gear because it was a PvP game and to succeed you have to be strong. Without balance, it becomes more about if you're playing the right class with the right build than the skill you put behind it. 

 

So like I said, this is my own opinion and I'm sure others don't share it, but not balancing archetypes worries me.

Edited by kino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I am certainly not the most knowledgable in this subject, I remember reading something about a significant amount of customization once the character is created. Also a number of promotion classes, but I share your concern. 

 

I feel as though, especially if they limit the archtypes by species as they seem to be doing, we will starting seeing much of the same, and very quick, moreso than other MMO's. 

 

However, since many of the members on the team worked with Pre CU SWG, a game that was huge with customization, I am sure that they have at least taken this into account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe balance in a game is something that is hard to achieve, or at least it seems that way from every game's attempts as such...  I feel that what they will need is some way for each archetype to be viable and necessary.  Something each class does that stands out and makes them important in a group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balance in Imbalance. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w

 

Not all things need be equal, to be equally viable.

 

I agree with this, but it even stated that you need a vast array of options to choose from in order to make it work, and thats moreso what I am worried about atm. It seems like it could go either way at this point, and I hope it goes towards more variety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading somewhere that they are not worried about balance because each archetype will be good in different situations.  They are all needed for the end game but for different reasons.

 

Balance is almost impossible to achieve.  Just look at WoW, they still try to balance the classes out.... all except the rogue..... I don't think they have made any changes to them in years.  But I digress, the try and achieve something that is unachievable is a pointless path to walk.  To make some archetypes stronger than others in different situations so they are all viable is a better way of doing it.... IMHO.


Tanom of the WhiteWalkers

 

iWQCpyx.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this, but it even stated that you need a vast array of options to choose from in order to make it work, and thats moreso what I am worried about atm. It seems like it could go either way at this point, and I hope it goes towards more variety

 

The important thing is to build a system where the counters are inherent.

 

I know I probably use Dota 2 as examples far too often in this forum, but it really is a great game to use for examples when it comes down to it at all walks of game design.

 

For example, lets say Hero A can teleport all around the Map.

Hero B tries to set up a kill on Hero A, Hero A just teleports away.

Hero B buys an item that allows him to silence enemy heroes, the next time he sets up a kill on Hero A he manages to kill him because the silence prevented the teleporting.

Hero A then decides to buy an item that blocks the first spell used on him. The next time hero B sets up a kill Hero A gets away because the silence is blocked by the spell shield.

Hero B then decides to buy another item solely for the purpose to pop the spell shield right before the silence. The next gank, Hero A dies.

Hero A then decides to buy an item that gives them immunity from magical damage and effects, including silences. The next gank, Hero A lives.

Hero B then decides to "bait" the magic immunity items active ability by pretending to gank Hero A. The magic immunity item has a long cooldown, and Hero B just ganks him again a short time later.

-OR- Hero B buys and item that cannot be used on magic immune opponents but will turn them into a sheep for 4 seconds during which they can't use the magic immunity item. But if Hero A uses the magic immunity fast enough, before the Hex, he gets away.

 

AND BAM - You've got an arms race based on decision making, reaction speed, and mechanics. Which involves very little "balancing" because the systems are just tools used to outplay each other.

 

TL;DR: Give the players the tools they need to disarm each others strategies and there will be no need for balancing outside extreme edge cases. If everything has a built in counter that is reliant on decision making, reaction speed and game sense player skill will be the only balancing factor needed. Assuming equal skill the players should execute the arms race in a way that is rewarding for both of them. In the case where one player is clearly better he wins, and the losing player can try to figure out why he lost and once he learns how to counter it, the method used to kill him no longer feels "cheap".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, this concerns me a little. Yes it's important to have players be able to customize their characters and finds what suits them, but in my opinion, balance is very important. If there's no balance, there will be a strongest. If there's a strongest, people will only play the strongest. If people only play the strongest, everything else will never be played. People will find the strongest Archetype and strongest Promotion Class and strongest Disciplines and strongest stats and attributes and then everyone will play that exact thing because it's the strongest. By not having balance and having a "strongest character" there will be cookie cutter builds because cookie cutter builds work, that's why everyone plays them. 

 

Take games like ArcheAge, which allowed players to be 120 different "classes" due to the combination of three skill trees. How many of those classes were viable? Not many. How many were the strongest? Like five. I saw the same classes over and over again because they were the strongest and there was no balance. Everyone had the same skills and same passives and same gear because it was a PvP game and to succeed you have to be strong. Without balance, it becomes more about if you're playing the right class with the right build than the skill you put behind it. 

 

So like I said, this is my own opinion and I'm sure others don't share it, but not balancing archetypes worries me.

 

 

There are a lot more then 5 viable classes in archeage. There were maybe 5 classes that were very practical and easy to to play but you could make at least half the available builds just as effective without much work and could probably make every class work. Some of those other builds were very good at countering the popular ones. Can't make every skill combination work but you could make every school combination work.

 

Screaming for balance before you even understand the system is extremely silly. They have said that the archetypes are more like starting points and we know nothing about the discipline system. Of course they are going to try to balance it. Screaming for balance is stupid atm.

Edited by Tyrogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will always be a flavor of the month. When some player shows how to play a specialized unit really well, others see its potential and label it OP (over-powered). Many will jump on that bandwagon until someone proves another archetype can consistently beat the "OP" unit in some situation. The parade will continue as long as there is a server running on Crowfall.

 

All archetypes are viable as long as there is a game niche that no other archetype can specialize to it better.

 

Just look at the units available, imagine what will fill the role you think will suit your playstyle and personal taste best and develop your toon to specialize in that. If someone trains a toon that does it better, is your build stronger in other likely circumstances than theirs? Would you be unhappy role-playing their archetype? If your answer is yes to either, maybe your toon is still better for you.


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot more then 5 viable classes in archeage. There were maybe 5 classes that were very practical and easy to to play but you could make at least half the available builds just as effective without much work and could probably make every class work. Some of those other builds were very good at countering the popular ones. Can't make every skill combination work but you could make every school combination work.

 

Screaming for balance before you even understand the system is extremely silly. They have said that the archetypes are more like starting points and we know nothing about the discipline system. Of course they are going to try to balance it. Screaming for balance is stupid atm.

Actually they have said that they're not going to be balancing Archetypes. It's in their FAQ.

"The natural result is that some character builds will inevitably be better than others."

 

Sooo yeah since they're specifically saying some character builds will be better than others, there's an issue. Why would people play those character builds that are worse? They wouldn't, that's the point.

 

And no, there were not a lot more than 5 viable classes. You saw these classes for the most part: Templar, Daggerspell, Abolisher, Darkrunner, and Primeval. Occasionally you'd see Stone Arrow, Revenant, Dreambreaker, Tomb Warden, or Defiler, but rarely. If you played anything other than these, you were considered bad or couldn't perform as well. Out of the 120 class combinations, 11 classes is not a whole lot. Cookie Cutter is used because it works.

 

I agree with this, but it even stated that you need a vast array of options to choose from in order to make it work, and thats moreso what I am worried about atm. It seems like it could go either way at this point, and I hope it goes towards more variety

A vast array of options doesn't necessarily work. Like my example, ArcheAge had 120 different class combinations and you literally saw the same 5 over and over again.

 

I remember reading somewhere that they are not worried about balance because each archetype will be good in different situations.  They are all needed for the end game but for different reasons.

 

Balance is almost impossible to achieve.  Just look at WoW, they still try to balance the classes out.... all except the rogue..... I don't think they have made any changes to them in years.  But I digress, the try and achieve something that is unachievable is a pointless path to walk.  To make some archetypes stronger than others in different situations so they are all viable is a better way of doing it.... IMHO.

That's still a type of balancing. I'm not saying make each Archetype equally strong against each other Archetype, but do make a balance. Making Archetypes better in different situations is balancing.

 

Going back to my ArcheAge example, you had classes like Templar which were the best tanks in game and the best healers in game that could still put out decent damage. Then you had Dreambreaker or Daggerspell which had the best CC and best Damage in game that could still self sustain. People flocked to the small amount of classes that were good in various situations. So by making Archetypes good or bad depending on the situation is a sort of balance.

Edited by kino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the strategy should be complex enough to make archetypes incomparable. If you need a variety of strategies and certain ones soft counter or completely circumvent others, strength fails to be relevant.

 

This is like comparing Centaurs ground advantages to a flying units ability to completely circumvent ground, or an archers necessity to address flyers no matter how bad they are vs ground units...

 

This level of deep asymmetry makes various units essential because you just can't operate without them, and it's a lot more interesting than micro balancing vs so everything is equal.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an ex-Archeage player I can understand your worries quite well, but the problem with Archeage wasn't that some classes were overpowered, it was that the number of playstyles was rather limited. There where some classes that could cover multiple playstyles (like the Stone Arrow class who could fulffill kite, tank and dps roles) but they never excelled at it. That way the classes that excelled the most at a certain role got popular among players and everyone started playing them (not neccesarily out of choice, mostly to be PvP viable). 

 

What I think the devs need to be wary of is that they provide enough playstyles and counters to those playstyles, without dumbing it down to "I have this class, you have that class, I win/lose by default". Variety in playstyles is key to a competitive game imho, and as such I am a proponent for many classes/specializations in games. 

 

Of course people will find strongest melee dps, or tank, or mage. But as long as there are other playstyles available that are able to counter those "strongest" classes in their own way, I don't think balance isn't such a priority. IF there is a single class that's good at EVERYTHING, then that's poor design and negatively unbalanced, I agree. But as long as there are several ways to counter this class (or any), I don't think there will be any balance issues.

 

Lastly, a vast difference between Crowfall and most other mmorpg's is the combat system mechanics. By moving away from tab-targetting, and going for manual aiming of attacks and skills, not all classes (or playstyles) will be playable by everyone at the same skill level. 

 

Sorry if anything of this seems demeaning or offensive, I completly respect your opinion as an individual, but english isn't my first language, and while I have a good vocabulary, I have trouble expressing what I want to say at times in the right words.

 

Greetings Hendaron

 

EDIT: Wow, I got ninja'd by like five people while typing this XS, further edit will follow after I have catched up on the others posts

Edited by Hendaron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they have said that they're not going to be balancing Archetypes. It's in their FAQ.

"The natural result is that some character builds will inevitably be better than others."

 

Sooo yeah since they're specifically saying some character builds will be better than others, there's an issue. Why would people play those character builds that are worse? They wouldn't, that's the point.

 

And no, there were not a lot more than 5 viable classes. You saw these classes for the most part: Templar, Daggerspell, Abolisher, Darkrunner, and Primeval. Occasionally you'd see Stone Arrow, Revenant, Dreambreaker, Tomb Warden, or Defiler, but rarely. If you played anything other than these, you were considered bad or couldn't perform as well. Out of the 120 class combinations, 11 classes is not a whole lot. Cookie Cutter is used because it works.

 

A vast array of options doesn't necessarily work. Like my example, ArcheAge had 120 different class combinations and you literally saw the same 5 over and over again.

 

That's still a type of balancing. I'm not saying make each Archetype equally strong against each other Archetype, but do make a balance. Making Archetypes better in different situations is balancing.

 

Going back to my ArcheAge example, you had classes like Templar which were the best tanks in game and the best healers in game that could still put out decent damage. Then you had Dreambreaker or Daggerspell which had the best CC and best Damage in game that could still self sustain. People flocked to the small amount of classes that were good in various situations. So by making Archetypes good or bad depending on the situation is a sort of balance.

 

I read that too and read it as they aren't going to go for perfect balance but if something can't fill the role it is suppose to, they are going to fix it. They are also talking about builds not archetypes in that post. Once again, we know next to nothing on disciplines.

 

Yea the classes were popular and easy to play. I wasn't denying that. People who didn't want to do the theory crafting would pick those up. If you understood the class system and how to make a class you would see that there are a lot more viable builds then just those. My Hex Warden with a staff did extremely well against those classes. Only one i would say was OP would be the primeval, In 1v1, it had way to much damage and mobility but i think it was countered by stone arrows. 

Edited by Tyrogon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not balancing archetypes worries me.

Even you will agree that it's not possible to balance them. I say it's because that's a subjective judgement.

 

ACE developers are starting Crowfall with this philosophy (as far as I can tell):

They can't make everyone happy, so they aren't going to try.

All they have to do is make a game that enough people think is great. Something they'd love to play for many years.

Some of them left millions of dollars on the table with other successful games. All of them are taking a risk starting Crowfall.

Some people will not like Crowfall, but they aren't going to ruin the game trying to make everyone happy.

They will settle for a small, loyal player base. If you're one of them, great! Welcome. If not, you will be missed.

 

Now, once you see the game system and all the possible builds, feel free to advise them about class viability.

If some talents or powers don't function properly, They really want to know.

Just don't expect them to change fundamental aspects of their game to make you happy.


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah don't think the Dev really meant there would be no balance or that they'd be ok with overpower classes. Here the full FAQ entry:

 

9. How can you allow for so much character customization, and still claim that every character is balanced?

We don’t claim that!  The idea that “all characters should be equally balanced in all situations” is not one of our design goals.  We’re giving you the control to be able to customize your character.  The natural result is that some character builds will inevitably be better than others. 

Instead, our goal is to create a deep, complex simulation – filled with tactical and environmental considerations and emergent gameplay.  Our design goal is that no single character is better than others in every situation. 

This approach means that mastery of the game relies on skill: knowing how to build your character in a way that suits your playstyle, and then seeking out situations in the game that will be to your advantage.  It also means that adventuring parties will be less cookie cutter, as the roles are not as clearly defined.

 

 

So to me it more sounds like they are going with the rock,paper, scissors approach of balance. Every archetype might have one they are weak too but also have one they are strong too. It creates a better team concept IMO and makes the game more situational and strategic.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

yeah don't think the Dev really meant there would be no balance or that they'd be ok with overpower classes. Here the full FAQ entry:

 

9. How can you allow for so much character customization, and still claim that every character is balanced?

We don’t claim that!  The idea that “all characters should be equally balanced in all situations” is not one of our design goals.  We’re giving you the control to be able to customize your character.  The natural result is that some character builds will inevitably be better than others. 

Instead, our goal is to create a deep, complex simulation – filled with tactical and environmental considerations and emergent gameplay.  Our design goal is that no single character is better than others in every situation. 

This approach means that mastery of the game relies on skill: knowing how to build your character in a way that suits your playstyle, and then seeking out situations in the game that will be to your advantage.  It also means that adventuring parties will be less cookie cutter, as the roles are not as clearly defined.

 

 

Nice pull Pang, I was just looking for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I think the devs need to be wary of is that they provide enough playstyles and counters to those playstyles, without dumbing it down to "I have this class, you have that class, I win/lose by default". Variety in playstyles is key to a competitive game imho, and as such I am a proponent for many classes/specializations in games. 

 

Of course people will find strongest melee dps, or tank, or mage. But as long as there are other playstyles available that are able to counter those "strongest" classes in their own way, I don't think balance isn't such a priority. IF there is a single class that's good at EVERYTHING, then that's poor design and negatively unbalanced, I agree. But as long as there are several ways to counter this class (or any), I don't think there will be any balance issues.

 

Dont forget that classes, even balanced ones, scale differently in number. If X class can beat Y class in 1v1, they might lose to Y in a 5v5. If they do let us form small groups to avoid FF, then a lot of balance may be based around small squads.

 

This is actually the kind of balance I'd like to see. A balance among different playstyles. A rock, paper, scissors type thing. One class might be good at 1v1 but horrible in group fights and pretty useless. Or vise versa, a class that's really good in large groups but find them on their own and death. Or a class that's really good at sustaining but doesn't deal a lot of damage. Or a support class that can be good with another class but on their own they have nothing.

 

But even within that, having one build within a class that absolutely wrecks all other builds will still lead to cookie cutter builds within that class. I get this game isn't for everyone but you'll end up seeing the same build within the archetype over and over again because it's the strongest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...