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

Archtypes Will Not Balanced?


Recommended Posts

OP, nothing to worry about as of yet. The game utilizes character building extremely similiar to Shadowbane. Now if you don't know how well made that system is, take a look at some class discussions after over 10 years of the game's existence: http://shadowbaneemulator.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=18 

People are still arguing, there is little consensus of which is the best build, and the best part is the what people actually consider best builds aren't of course in public, they are stashed away in the guild forums in some section guilds won't give others access to.

 

Also, balancing the game too much is like keeping a pig in the oven for too long, it becomes dry..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Balance in Imbalance.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w   Not all things need be equal, to be equally viable.

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

Absolutely.   1. There should be no "I-win-button" archetype which always counters your archetype. 2. The distribution of counters should be roughly fair. There shouldn't be one archetype which is

From what I heard from a friend that played Shadowbane, it was plagued with lack of balance. Also from what I played in original Star Wars Galaxies, in combat, there was a severe lack of balance. Yes Jedi was eeextreeeemely difficult to get, but if you got it, well no one could stand up to you.

 

Also, I'd appreciate it if the title of my thread wasn't changed. If a mod changed it, there's no reason to change it as it wasn't a troll topic name, so please change it back to the original "Archetypes not balanced?" If a dev changed it, would like some clarification in a post rather than just a change of topic. Thanks.

Edited by kino
Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

 

It takes a truck to haul stuff, but a car will out run it.

A car can race, but a truck would beat it off road.

 

Eternal Heroes, Dying Worlds. Given that we know each world will have different rules, and that only a few will last forever, the environment will play a huge role in dictating what is most valuable in a character.

 

Also I have a hunch that we have only seen a small part of the full range of character customization. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Balance" is a myth. Also, in this kind of game, it's not even worth worrying about.

 

If you've got a moba or a duel style PvP system, small groups, 1on1, that sort of thing, attempting to balance is necessary.

 

But when you're talking 1000v1000? The law of averages does your work for you.

I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, has it been confirmed that weapon swapping won't be a feature? Like, will melee classes be restricted from using a bow?

Quite the opposite. The devs said that any weapon you have the prereqs for, you can use.

I'm in this for the Experience, not the XP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no real way to apply meaningful advantages to a dedicated ranged unit without it, they want to include friendly fire and arch fire, which means missing is going to be easy, and serious, it's not as simple as being a good shot.

 

Beyond that, if they involve ammo... spamming arrows while crosshair shooting is going to be lame... I don't want to see something automatic like tab targeting of course, but something like a target circle or aiming window to help track and lock onto targets would allow players to target practically, while the system prepares complex assistance for projectile velocity, delay, direction of movement and even tracking with special skills.

 

Even if they implement all the movement restraints I discuss in all my other subjects, your just not going to be able to target anything at a meaningful distance with an Archer... and I don't think players are gonna be satisfied with group volleys into enemy masses just to be effective at a distance... especially since practical use of shields would neuter most of their offense...

I know what you're talking about; but Darkfall tried to do it in Unholy Wars. And I'm telling you, it was awful. Not only were the ranged characters not able to be as precise as they wanted to be, but it ruined ranged combat for the other classes as well.

 

While they were technically able to use a bow, the target reticle became so big that the RNG was too much to predict accurately. You were better off just keeping your two hander or staff out instead.

 

As far as group volleys go, I suspect they'll still have them. It just won't be with "white hits" (default left click attacks). Archers will have at least one AoE burst ability (like an explosive arrow or something) that you can all sync.

 

Just my 2 cents. I'm also a huge advocate of friendly fire; there shouldn't be an in game system to warn/prevent it in my opinion. If you don't want to injure friendlies, you have to shoot, swing, and cast with care.

Quite the opposite. The devs said that any weapon you have the prereqs for, you can use.

 

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYES!

 

Do you happen to have a link to where they said this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you're talking about; but Darkfall tried to do it in Unholy Wars. And I'm telling you, it was awful. Not only were the ranged characters not able to be as precise as they wanted to be, but it ruined ranged combat for the other classes as well.

 

While they were technically able to use a bow, the target reticle became so big that the RNG was too much to predict accurately. You were better off just keeping your two hander or staff out instead.

 

As far as group volleys go, I suspect they'll still have them. It just won't be with "white hits" (default left click attacks). Archers will have at least one AoE burst ability (like an explosive arrow or something) that you can all sync.

 

Just my 2 cents. I'm also a huge advocate of friendly fire; there shouldn't be an in game system to warn/prevent it in my opinion. If you don't want to injure friendlies, you have to shoot, swing, and cast with care.

 

 

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYES!

 

Do you happen to have a link to where they said this?

I don't know if you've played classic armored core, but there is no RNG. It's a calculation of weapon choice, firing proficiency, target behavior and trade offs... The player has to target in a window or circle and the system does complex firing solutions as long as you can track a foe in that circle or square. It's basically limited auto target, with a variety of effectiveness conditions, like weapon choice vs and target size and depth depending on how strong the weapon is and how far away the foe is.

 

I'd highly suggest you investigate the method before dismissing it, it's perhaps the best firing solution for any action game really. But that what I like. Having various firing solutions is fine, so it doesn't have to be exclusive, but AC 1-3 were incredibly good firing simulations.

 

"Balance" is a myth. Also, in this kind of game, it's not even worth worrying about.

 

If you've got a moba or a duel style PvP system, small groups, 1on1, that sort of thing, attempting to balance is necessary.

 

But when you're talking 1000v1000? The law of averages does your work for you.

This is quite true, it's a free form battle where players have several of the same characters on both sides, and forces may not even be even. What matters is how the game can enable strategically fascinating battles and enjoyable gameplay, not nit picking classes til they have no individuality...

Edited by BahamutKaiser

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain Archetypes should be stronger against others, but there shouldn't be any glaring, hard counters.

 

Every class should be viable against every other class in a 1 vs 1 setting. You achieve this, then every class will be viable in 100 vs 100, and instead of relying on the game mechanics to balance the game out, player skill instead balances it out.

 

Absolutely.

 

1. There should be no "I-win-button" archetype which always counters your archetype.

2. The distribution of counters should be roughly fair. There shouldn't be one archetype which is really good against 80% of archetypes and only poor against 20%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain Archetypes should be stronger against others, but there shouldn't be any glaring, hard counters.

 

Every class should be viable against every other class in a 1 vs 1 setting. You achieve this, then every class will be viable in 100 vs 100, and instead of relying on the game mechanics to balance the game out, player skill instead balances it out.

 

I completely agree, This will also give a reason for a group to incorporate a variety of different archetypes, instead of just picking the same old 'Most Effective' nonsense.

 

I also think that there does not need to be such a strong focus on balancing; a skilled player with an average build should be able to defeat an average player with an insanely powerful build through dodging, correct timing and a superior knowledge of the environment. I'll be taking Dark Souls as an example, in which nearly every single attack (with the exception of a few) are either dodgeable, blockable, or parryable. This allows skilled players to take down opponents that have much stronger builds, which encourages newer or worse players to try and become better at the game instead of finding the 'Most Effective' nonsense build.

 

End Note: Skill should always be able to trump op builds.

Edited by Nexsidious
Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree, This will also give a reason for a group to incorporate a variety of different archetypes, instead of just picking the same old 'Most Effective' nonsense.

 

I also think that there does not need to be such a strong focus on balancing; a skilled player with an average build should be able to defeat an average player with an insanely powerful build through dodging, correct timing and a superior knowledge of the environment. I'll be taking Dark Souls as an example, in which nearly every single attack (with the exception of a few) are either dodgeable, blockable, or parryable. This allows skilled players to take down opponents that have much stronger builds, which encourages newer or worse players to try and become better at the game instead of finding the 'Most Effective' nonsense build.

 

End Note: Skill should always be able to trump op builds.

 

That's exactly what "balancing" means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what "balancing" means.

 

The way I see it is that balancing builds is the act of buffing builds that are too weak and nerfing builds that are too strong etc. what I'm saying is that as long as long as it is possible to defeat the strong builds through skill, there is no need to nerf them, nothing can be completely balanced and and it is not necessary to have an even playing field. In Crowfall skill should be far more important than having a fully optimized build, to the point where having a super effective build becomes kind of redundant and players focus more on actually improving their skills and becoming better at the game.     

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is that balancing builds is the act of buffing builds that are too weak and nerfing builds that are too strong etc. what I'm saying is that as long as long as it is possible to defeat the strong builds through skill, there is no need to nerf them, nothing can be completely balanced and and it is not necessary to have an even playing field. In Crowfall skill should be far more important than having a fully optimized build, to the point where having a super effective build becomes kind of redundant and players focus more on actually improving their skills and becoming better at the game.     

 

That's just not how things work though. If a build or archetype is too strong, then even a far more skilled player won't be able to take them down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is that balancing builds is the act of buffing builds that are too weak and nerfing builds that are too strong etc. what I'm saying is that as long as long as it is possible to defeat the strong builds through skill, there is no need to nerf them, nothing can be completely balanced and and it is not necessary to have an even playing field. In Crowfall skill should be far more important than having a fully optimized build, to the point where having a super effective build becomes kind of redundant and players focus more on actually improving their skills and becoming better at the game.

Sounds good, but in reality a closely matched battle or even comparable battle which is unbalanced enough for the less skilled player to win is unwelcome.

 

Instead of focusing on how skill will determine victors in a simular setting, it should be more emphasized on strategy and tactics applied to deeply unique archetype gameplay. The players intelligence and skill can both be factors in a deeply asymmetric system, allowing for a variety of talents to matter in battles...

Edited by BahamutKaiser

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think Ranged Archetypes should switch to Melee weapons when they are engaged directly, or get butchered. Given a basic disadvantage, they should still be able to win, if they do enough damage on approach it could give them an edge.

 

Also, I imagine different Archetypes would have a variety of weapons and options, even ranged, but obviously I'd expect a ranged specific Archetype to have wildly superior options, with HUGE down range potential, and far greater bows with suitable arrows. Basically the fantasy version of a longbow, chucking tiny spear sized arrows from a distance you might not even be able to see, like over a hill.

 

Special qualities might be soul tracking so they can detect opponents over ledges and down field without seeing them. This is also why I feel a form of target assistance should be in the game. Aiming at an unseen target over an arch at a huge distance is virtually impossible, even in real life, but this is a fantasy, so it would be awesome if they could do all sorts of trick shots, Arrows with a slight amount of track to them, hitting move targets at barely visable range, and the good old multi arrow shot, or even some moving archery.

 

War-of-the-Arrows.jpg

Agreed, but switching weapons shouldn't be too easy. I suggest a 2 second pass action to stow a weapon or item, zero time to drop it, and a 2 second pass action to draw a new weapon. So if you're holding something and you just give the game command to draw a weapon without stowing the first thing, you dropped it. Anyone can spend 4 seconds picking it up from there.  :unsure:  

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good, but in reality a closely matched battle or even comparable battle which is unbalanced enough for the less skilled player to win is unwelcome.

 

Instead of focusing on how skill will determine victors in a simular setting, it should be more emphasized on strategy and tactics applied to deeply unique archetype gameplay. The players intelligence and skill can both be factors in a deeply asymmetric system, allowing for a variety of talents to matter in battles...

 

I agree, cooperation should also be an important part part of combat so players can team up and use strategy and tactics to their advantage, I was thinking far too much about a 1v1 kind of scenario (I can't believe I almost forgot that this was an mmo  :ph34r: ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just not how things work though. If a build or archetype is too strong, then even a far more skilled player won't be able to take them down.

 

I think this can work, but the said build or archetype must not be TOO strong, it must be weak enough for a skilled player to defeat, as I have mentioned previously.

So a small amount of balancing will be required to make sure nothing is glaringly unfair, but not the extent that every build or archetype is set on an even playing field.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the idea of 'perfect' balance.

 

Trying to reach that level of balance means characters are a strict rock, paper, or scissors. This usually results in classes being extremely watered down and just a reskin of every other.

 

I like the idea of allowing players to specialize so they have distinct strengths and weaknesses. Don't like Rogue characters? Then you can specialize to be more effective against them - however, it WILL make you weaker to other Archetypes.

UkBSCr2.png


CF.GG


Your primary source of Crowfall news, guides, and information.

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 think a great way to perceive this idea with a game like this, would be to it another way.  The combat system seems to me like they're focusing on a lot of Vindictus or Gunz type play styles.  Except for, in a perfectly balanced system, it no longer becomes both, but one or the other.  While Vindictus allows players to really focus on build's and build strategy (which falls under the 1 Build to rule them all problem), Gunz focuses on who can manually out-maneuver their opponent with mechanical operations (The example of Starcraft becoming who can click faster).

 

I'm not sure how they will do it, but I think an unbalanced system might work, with occasional patches.  I just hope the patches come on a league of legends basis, and not a Diablo 3 basis.

 

On a side note:

Without a targeting system inplace...  meaning ranged attacks can miss, this will skew the system into automatically favoring melee builds, since you are now implementing a actually manual dodge system.

Edited by Armyguyclaude
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...