Slashdot Mirror
The Lost Art of Class Balancing
GamePro has a look at the delicate touch needed when balancing classes in a Massive title. From the article: "Bad class balancing has been an endemic problem to MMORPGs--unfortunately especially in games where PvP is a major component. Dark Age of Camelot tanked the usability of the original classes with the emergence of Vampiirs in the ill-reputed Catacombs expansion. Users were incensed when Creature Handlers ruled the universe in Star Wars Galaxies--then angered even more when the class was beat down with the nerf bat in subsequent patches."
It's just a matter of a little going a long, long, long way. Changes that seem to resolve an immediate problem can have drastic effects long term. Look at it from a gameplay mechanic instead of a balance mechanic. When the level cap is raised in World of Warcraft, it most likely will be five levels, to a maximum of 65. Perhaps it will be more, but that remains to be seen. Level 65 doesn't make much difference for one person in many situations; most NPCs at the current max level, 60, will just be soloable by most players without uber gear. Large encounters, however, will be completely changed. Players will be able to kill Onyxia and Ragnaros (a big bad nasty dragon and a big bad nasty lava giant, respectively) quickly and easily if they plan ahead and execute well.
It's this kind of ripple effect - where one small change suddenly becomes very drastic when multiplied by larger numbers - that makes class balance so difficult. After all, it's easier to multiply by 1.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
Nerf Shamans!! (or rogues, if that's your thing)
and realize that no game is perfect, and while many could be a hell of a lot better, designers are usually under a deadline, and while they may want to create a nice, balanced game, they can't. The only way for them to balance it out, is to later release patchs, which, if they haven't been properly tested, may just make things worse.
the jedi alpha class in swg was fine until they made it easier it get a jedi toon than to tie your own shoelaces. now all pvp (in swg) consists of jedi and riflemen (and some jedi/rifleman hybrids) i just canceled my acocunt.
The main problem is in games that involve both PvP and PvE. I play PvE almost exclusively in any game that gives the choice. In WoW, both my Warlock and Mage are specced 100% for PvE. I really enjoy how they make each class useful in a group, and you benefit from each class in a different way.
When it comes to PvP that is terrible. In PvP, the healing classes are almost always terrible in every game. The alternative is that you get priests that are Shadow Specced (WoW) or Smite Priests (DAoC) and they are nearly useless when you need a healer on a raid.
For PvP only, every class has to be an even match. That means the developers can't give really good abilities to some classes that would greatly help against mobs. Look at how badly fear and seduction are nerfed in WoW. They were handy in PvE, were overpowered in PvP, they got nerfed for PvP, now they suck for PvE. That is the cycle that happens in every game as PvP begins to overshadow the PvE.
I would be for different rules on PvP vs. PvE servers. I hate when the population cries about an ability because they can't figure out how to beat it, and a class gets taken out in PvE over it.
/. ++
The trick to class balancing is making sure that there isn't an uber-class in the first place. There will be issues that pop up, when new base classes are introduced in expansions, as well. Consider that it is an expansion, and that the set of classes up until then have been balanced over time, while the new class has had minimal balancing.
The way to balance shouldn't be to "nerf," but to increase the power of other classes to the point where the overpowered class is not an issue. Sure, there will be envy complaints, but at least they would be the wounded victimized complaints that appear after the nerf has been applied.
Introducing new classes after the release should only be on the order of "hero classes." This increases variety, and requires the original balanced classes to be played until a specific level. After that level, a hero class can be chosen, and though they may be unbalanced, they don't affect gameplay from the beginning.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
the only problem with over-specialized character classes comes with 'support' classes, such as CoH's "Controller" class. Without "offensive" skills, the Controller is nothing but a button-pusher: "Oh, look, another battle. Target our Tank. Heal. Heal. Heal. Clear mind. Heal. Heal. Recovery Aura. Heal. Until they readjusted the characters (and gave out free respecs) I hated playing my 'starting' character because I would just sit in battles pressing 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3.... without any accomplishment. I considered turning on "Follow" and leaving a stack of quarters on the "Heal" key.
/quit.
Specialized characters may make sense, but part of the fun of playing is the sense of personal accomplishment. If all I do is stand around glowing while everyone one else fulfills the mission goals, there's no point in playing that class.
And God help me if PvP were part of general gameplay. I'd never get anywhere as a Controller. Sure--I can stun your ass. But then I spend an hour punching you to death, and long before that, you
World of Warcraft does have some pretty bad class balance issues, and just some gimped classes. Some examples of blizzards incompentency:
1. As mentioned, Paladins were reworked two weeks before release the class had it's whole combat system changed (Read nerfed). While the class is described to this day as a 'melee based hybrid' it puts out less damage per second than any other class (including priests). It also has no long ranged attack, and only one stun. On the healing side of it, the Paladin in the fourth best healer in the game, behind Priests, Druids and Shamans. What it all adds up to is a class that is poor at PvP. Instead of keeping an eye on the paladin since they were changed 2 weeks before launch, blizzard has chosen to ignore them.
2. Warlocks, along with having to deal with Will of the Forsaken going through their only decent crowd control spell (fear) also have to put up with farming soul shards to PvP. Basically, a warlock must PvE for a good 20-30 minutes to PvP for an hour since they need soul shards to preform some of their better spells/abilities. No other class has to put up with this sort of thing. To top it off, the shards are not stackable, meaning each one takes up one spot in your inventory, thus limiting other things a warlock could take for PvP from his or her bank.
3. Hunters have some kind of "Dead Zone" inbetween Melee range and their ranged attacks where from what I understand they can be attack but they can not attack others. Since hunter is one of the few classes I don't play, I'm taking the word of the 1000 hunters whining about it on the forums.
4. All of the racial traits for one faction (The horde) vastly overpower those of the other (alliance).
5. Instead of improving classes, Blizzard has shown that they would rather swing the nerf bat. This is the wrong way to go about balancing a MMO.
You can't have balanced classes and have PvP and PvE. You have to make each character unique and bring something different to a group when you fight together. This does not lend itself to being even in PvP because some classes will be designed to be in a support role. It is more important that every class feels like it brings something special and useful to a group. One on one PvP is over-rated. There will always be one "best" class for it. Group PvP makes things much more interesting...and as long as you are a good player, you should be able to play any class and contribute significantly. If you can't, then there really is a class imbalance.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Is having all the classes balanced really that essential? I don't think so. I believe it is important to have most classes well balanced, but having one or two classes that are "weaker" isn't such a bad thing. I personally like a challenge of playing a slightly weaker class. When you beat an opponent with the weaker class, there is a greater since of accomplishment.
I'll agree that playing against the overpowered class can be frustrating, but it just forces me to do something out of the ordinary to win. People complain about Shamans being overpowered. I agree, they have some advantages, but they aren't big enough to ruin the game. I have a 60 Warrior and I have killed shamans lots of times. Granted, in a duel, I'll only win about 35% of the time, but those wins sure do feel good.
The problems with the Paladin, Warlock, and Hunter classes is that people are trying to use the class incorrectly. These three classes are very passive/solo classes. Yet people wonder why they don't do well in group settings. This is because the class is meant to be more solo friendly. Problem is, everyone wants every class to be how THEY want it. This is impossible, since some like to solo, some like PvE, some like PvP. If people are so worried about being the best, then simply play the class that suits your needs.
The only valid complaint people can have I think is that they have already put tons of time into their class and don't want to go back. Well, guess what, people of been complaining about the same stuff since launch. It's the players fault for not doing a little research on a class before putting tons of time into it. I hope they don't nerf any of the classes. I don't want to lose that extra since of accomplishment when I kill a shaman and I enjoy PvE with my Warlock when I get burnt out playing with my warrior.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say, so...you're stuck with this.
As has been pointed out in TFA and some other posts, the problem of class balance shows up when a PvE turns into PvP. EQ, SWG, WoW, DAoC, CoH, et al were designed as PvE games from the start, with class skills designed to mesh together to fight large groups that just stand around and take damage.
Guild Wars was built from the ground up to be a small team (4v4-8v8v8v8) PvP game, and the classes were designed as such. There is nothing coming close to an uber build GW, there is always an easy counter to a technique. Rangers and Mesmers stop heals and damage spikes from Elementalist and Monks, Warriors hunt down the Rangers/Mesmers, Eles and Warriors damage the Warriors while the Monks try to keep everyone alive.
Once the PvP was balanced out the same classes were put into the PvE game against enemey MOBs that have the same skills as the players.
The problem of class balance in other games shows up when a charater spec for PvE is shoehorned into a PvP role where many of their skills end up being either useless or far too powerful.
Add in Arenanet's commitment to eleminating the grind in any from and weekly patches to cut down on farming and exploits of the PvE game while maintaining an even playing field in PvP and you have a winner.
A good PvP game can be a good PvE game as well, but a PvE game can never do PvP fairly.
Now go join my guild, The Lazy Eights [LZY], in game name Sinderalla Ocool.
"I'm not high, just stupid" --JY
1. Make small, incremental changes, and measure the effects for a few weeks before determining if they've solved any problems.
2. Don't listen to the loudest and most frequent complainsers. It's the guy who never says anything and then one day pens a detialed analysis of your classes who is most likely to have some good insight.
3. Play your classes yourself and understand what your players are bitching about.
4. Understanding that somebody is ALWAYS going to be bitching about class balance, and just beacuse people are still bitching doesn't mean it's not well-balanced.
5. Classes and zones you design early on tend to be much less powerful (and the zones much more difficult) than those that are designed late in the process. Your early classes tend to be moderately powerful with strong checks and balances in their best abilities. The later work tends to be moderately powerful but without the checks and balances. Just look at Warlocks in WoW, compared with Paladins or Shamans. Look at any game, really, and how many of the add-on classes or races were MUCH MUCH better than the stock stuff? They have to be. If they're not any better, nobody buys the expansion to play them.
6. That leads me to my next point - you want to keep classes balanced, look at races. In a perfect game, you'd have 1 race. Barring that, races with minor stat variations and a few tricks, but no major differences are key.
7. Design the game (the mechanics, the zones, the quests, etc) with your classes in mind and then DO NOT ADD CLASSES. The new classes invariably will rip through the "old world" and only be challenged in the new zones designed with that class in mind. I think my #1 advice to any MMORPG is to never add additional classes beyond your starting crop. I'm sure people will point out countless examples of this being done successfully, but I think it's a major disaster waiting to happen most of the time.
8. Even better than all this - DON'T HAVE CLASSES in the first place.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
As a rogue, all I have to say is that he should be putting up his freakin paranoia pet and dotting folks and casting hellfire on a whim. rogues would stay away from him. I certainly would. It's that whole thing: would I rather kill the easy target or the hard target. with his paranoia pet and random pbae attacks I'd rather go for the shaman over near him. Also I'm not sure why he keeps saying shaman rule the BG: I rarely think twice before killing a shaman. easy target.
Geoff "Mandrake" Harrison
Some Random UI Hacker
I've played COH, Galaxies, Dark Age, EverQuest, and Ultima Online and the problem is epidemic. All of them have issues where the designers plan to have a perfect team that fit a certain play style. If you're play style doesn't match their idea of what you should be doing, it's an unbalanced game.
Maybe they should concentrate on adaptive power's/abilities, a few solo powers (just strong enough that as a solo character you can heal yourself enough not to always die and attack with something that will kill things after a decent time), but generally things that can add to or stack with other classes powers.
Using COH for an example, have the fire controller be able to boost a fire tanks abilities if they are grouped, where the damage is doubled or regeneration is quicker or something. So that alone a character is barely playable, but in a group the dynamics become more interesting. Or heck, have an ice controller in the same team have adverse effects on enemies, like lengthen effects or add ice burn damage by increasing temperature extremes the bad guys face.
Actually, just have the powers/abilities be more realistic. Arrows act more arrows instead of hits with arrow graphics, punches like punches, fire bolts like fire bolts, etc...
That would make me play more and love what I play, even if the graphics are less that state of the art. Fixing things like line of sight or having the power sets coherent instead of artificially balanced.
Game Developers, there is no need to arbitrarily add "extra" things to balance characters. Fire characters should take cold damage at a higher level that isn't "nerf"-ing the character types it's making them more meaningful. And yes, it's ok that one type of archer race is a much better archer than another race, inequalities happen in real life all the time. Consistency is what players really wish for, not balanced classes.
This isn't a license to make uber-classes that can take out anything; they should all have fatal vulnerabilities. They should have reasons to team up. Characters that use mostly physical attacks should have issues attacking things that aren't physical, and hitting a rock monster or robot with your fist should do almost as much damage to you as to the monster if there aren't any powers that help.
But in closing, the biggest issue is developers trying to balance characters, instead of improving them. In PVP, a tank should crush a controller, but only when the controller's control of the tank fails. This is due to the nature of the classes, not to an unbalanced game. Don't look at how character A. got crushed in seconds in a fight, look at why. Then fix it only if why doesn't fit with the world of the game.
"Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy
It's that simple.
A long long time ago there was a game system called Chivalry and Sorcery, whose greatest contribution to the gaming world was an essay called 'The Ecology of Monsters'. This is required reading for anyone who is going to do game design (along with 'Drop the Rock').
What it comes down to is this: If your creature/character is all powerful, then why hasn't it taken over the eco-system/world and killed off everything else? All Monsters/Races/Classes MUST have an Achillies heel. They MUST have weak spots, they MUST be able to be killed. They must have some natural enemy.
In WOW we have Shamans who are really over powered. Compared to the Alliance side actually, all of the Horde is more powerful (which according to rumor is because all the dev's play Horde and not Alliance - why am I not surprised?). The way to have really balanced the game out would be to make Shamans and Paladins equally powerful as group leaders (but in subtlely different ways) and then make one of the weaker classes the bane of these more powerful characters. That would of course encourage folks to play those less powerful classes.
And of course the REAL answer to these problems is to make your DM's actually DM!! That's what they're being paid for right? TO WORK? The DM's in WOW are spectators and stink. When there is a terrible imbalance in the game the DM's are supposed to go out there and deal with it in real time. That's their job! Every good gamer knows that. A multitude of game mechanic sins can easily be handled by a good DM who gets out there and 'Deus Ex Machina's a little balance into the game.
There will probably never be a perfect MMORPG, but that doesn't bother me. I'm there for the game, to have fun, not to rape the rules. Adults have all learned that life isn't fair so they don't mind games that aren't exactly 'balanced', as long as the games are fun!. And that is far more important than 'Balance' will ever be.
The need for perfect balance could be reduced by making every player unique. In early RPGs this was done by generating random attributes for each avatar at the beginning. But predictably people kept generating new avatars until they got the stats they wanted. After that, people tend to learn what combinations of class-race-armour-weapons-skills work best and stick to them.
I would like to see some random variety introduced when it is too late to go back and start again. In EQ, you visited your guild masters every few levels. Suppose those masters gave you a random gift that made you different from every other member of your class. Maybe a ranger gets one spell that usually only enchanters have. Or he gets a weapon that only he, and no other ranger, can use. The gifts would be random, and given as you level up. Maybe your level 5 gift wasn't so good, but your level 15 gift rocks.
It would be up to you, and you alone, to figure out how to best use the gifts. The effect of uber-classes would still be there, but it would be muddied somewhat by the players who make best use of their particular gifts.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
This article contains a statement of a position and no supporting arguments or evidence.
I'm very disappointed that this made it to slashdot games. Where is the logical analysis to back up the arguments?
Also as a side comment to people claiming horde is more powerful than alliance -- they should be. The WOW player ecology depends on a blanace in the number of horde and alliance players. Giving advantages to the horde is a sensible way to try and counteract the fact that more people play alliance.
I play alliance (level 60 gnome warrior). I do PvP. I am aware of the fact that other races make much better warriors than gnomes (alliance or horde). Honestly it doesn't make that big a difference. Taurens with their hit points and war stomps have an advantage over me, but skill, gear, and teamwork are much bigger factors. I happily grants horde players their tiny tiny racial abilities advantage. Meanwhile the horde as a whole faces a very large disadvantage in their lower populations, meaning the alliance are able to constantly zerg them in pvp (except for ctf), and are much better able to mobilize in PVE to gain powerful items that more than make up for these tiny racial abilities.
---
I support spreading santorum
usually, there is one area in which a class outshines all others, for example in Everquest:
Clerics:Rezzing, Druids:Travel, Shamans: Debuffing
Wizards:Burst damage, Enchanters:Crowd Control, Magicians:Pets, Necromancers:damage-over-time spells
Warriors:Taking hits, Rogues:Traps/Sneak, Monk:Melee damage
Bards:mana regen, Rangers:Archery/Tracking, Paladins:Undead slaying, Shadowknights:Holding aggro
Then they added Beastlords and Berzerkers... since they didn't want to displace any existing class, Beastlords ended up a jack-of-all-trades; while they tried (and failed) to add a new reation based combat system around when they introduced 'zerkers (iirc)
the problem comes in that people want to pick the best characters for the situation; If there are no undead in the area, why have a Pally? mosters dying fast, so why have a Necro?
the next problem was balancing a group with a shaman that can cut a monsters damage output by 75%, with one without. or one with a cleric, who can heal 10000 hp in a shot, vs. other healers that can't do more than 1000. In order for content to be a challange to a group with a Shaman AND and Cleric the monsters have to be able to rip through groups that lack them in a couple seconds, making a Cleric and a Shaman almost mandatory for grouping in most players eyes.
(I have 3 accounts, my Mage, then a Cleric and a Shaman set up on hotkeys to Heal and Slow)
my thought for a design...
First, decide on the 'ideal' group size, I think 5 is a good number.
then come up with a adventuring system that requires that number of distict abilities.
Healing, Melee Damage, Magic Damage, Melee Protection, Magic Protection.
then, create classes that each can fill MOST jobs, instead of a few.
Heal, MeleeD, MagicD:
Heal, MeleeD, MeleeP: Paladin type
Heal, MeleeD, MagicP: Ranger type
Heal, MagicD, MeleeP: Shaman type
Heal, MagicD, MagicP: Druid type
Heal, MeleeP, MagicP: Cleric Type
MeleeD, MagicD, MeleeP: Shadowknight type
MeleeD, MagicD, MagicP:
MeleeD, MeleeP, MagicP:
MagicD, MeleeP, MagicP:
well, obviously they don't all correlate to EQ classes, as that's the point. Everyone with a base ability should have the same level of power, just with different 'flavor'; which will lead to some situational advantages, but if, for example, the particular types of magic damage available to a druid-type class are ineffective in an area, he'd still be able to fully function as a Healer and protector vs. magic.
Ahahaha, cute. I'm 27 and have a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Florida. God forbid I use internet video game lingo in an internet discussion about an internet video game. Idiot.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Every single game I've been in, has basically bungled horribly through class balance, making seemingly random changes and then waiting to see the result. COH, yes, too. Horrible balance issues and swings. And if you hate the changes to your character so far, you'll probably hate Issue 5, already known affectionately as The Nerf.
The problem IMHO is the strong dichotomy between creative types and some of us "accountant types", for lack of a better name.
The creative guys are able to come up with _interesting_ ideas like "I know, let's have a hero that fights with a bent spork and catches bullets with his toes". That's what makes a comic book or a game _interesting_. It's what gives you unique characters, missions, story arcs, etc.
Us accountant types however, then just come, put all those "Spork Thrust", "Spork Slash" and "Toe Wiggle" powers in a big spreadsheet and run a min-max simulation through them. We calculate _exact_ damage-per-second, damage-per-endurance and such, and invariably it turns out that the game is utterly unbalanced and there's some utterly ludicrious winning combination.
The problem is that the two groups are distinct groups. In fact they're pretty much natural enemies. The creative types usually throw a fit and call you a "numberchaser" or such if you even mention soiling their grand vision with such profane maths. (Try even mentioning numbers on some MUDs and you'll see what I mean.) And conversely us maths types treat those designers as the antichrist when they do those broad-sweeping random balance changes, and cause everyone's characters to bounce randomly between uber-slayer-of-everything-in-god-mode and utter-total-wimp.
That dichotomy is what's really the problem. Most balance issues could be foreseen and corrected before release, by simply running the same simulations and maths. The _massive_ kinds of balance problems some games have shouldn't have even made it into testing, much less be there after a year of being live.
There is nothing utterly unforeseeable about most of those min-maxed combination. It's not like "but you can't know what arcane non-obvious thing the players will abuse." You can. Maths is where it's at, because that's what the players will use to find those uber-combos. And the devs could do the exact same maths before the game is released.
But, alas, it would need some of the creative types to put down the crack pipe, get over the ego trip, and let their grand vision be run through a spreadsheet. Not that I expect it to happen any time soon.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I don't see how balancing is a problem at all. I wish everyone would just ignore completely the relative strengths and weaknesses of a class when choosing it, and just choose a class because it suits their personality or whatever. Basically choose ideologically if you know what i mean. But instead the "pro" (wow they're soooo cool!) players go off and all choose a class that in general may be better than others in whatever situation and the people who loose to them start crying because all everyone wants to be is the winner, the boy on top of the sandcatle. I remember when i first started playing online games I had great fun ever when loosing, which happened most of the time and still does, though I win sometimes (!), because I loved saying "well at least i fought hard and it was such an epic battle and what glory!" etc. I won sometimes and obviously felt great about those. But i was shocked the way nearly everyone else, with the exception of a few magnificent people, were all like "omg we're loosing lets surrender" or "this is so shit I'm joining their team". I really cannot understand how winning is the only way people get enjoyment out of the games. And i think, so what if an enemy mage/kingdom/team is really powerful, we'll go out there and throw ourselves into battle and not give up and give it our all. And we'll do loads of damage and the enemy will certainly have been worse off than they were before they faced our brave onslaught. And we'd tell tales of the battle and talk all day and night with our friends and it would be such fun!
Alas most people are but little boys who have to be on the winning team.
This guy are sick.
How do you think the _players_ found those uber-clases/builds/whatever? No, seriously.
Ever looked on the forums for some character building advice? What did you see? Some dps (damage per second) calculations. "Take class X, turn on power Y, chain the attacks A, B, C, D and B again. It causes 75.13 damage per second, 15.39 damage per endurance/mana/whatever point, and leaves you with 0.35 seconds before A recharges again."
Which leads to advice like "take katana instead of broadsword because it does x% higher dps" or "don't bother taking power Z, because stacking X and Y and these enhancements/armours/whatever already puts you at the damage reduction cap." That's all just maths, nothing horribly surprising or utterly unforeseen.
So what's keeping the designers from running the same kind of maths? I can write a program in less than half an hour that calculates all possible attack chains, and their outcome. Why can't the devs ask a team member to do that?
Other stuff it's so bloody obvious you don't even need a program to see it coming. E.g., if turning on powers X, Y and Z gives a tank in COH a whole 90% damage reduction and 95% avoidance, how do you balance that against classes who get 0% in either?
If the tank has, say, 1000 HP and 90% damage reduction, to do a measly 50 HP damage to the tank (i.e., a bare scratch that will heal in 1 second), an enemy would have to have 500 HP attacks. If it even hits at all. Oops, some of the other classes have less than 500 HP at that level, and get 0% damage resistance. They'll get killed in one shot by that enemy.
You don't need a complex simulation to see it coming. But you do need to apply some elementary arithmetic and calculate that, oops, those powers stack all the way up to the 90% damage cap. That's what's missing.
And once you found that out, the sane way would be to address the problem, instead of bungling randomly through addressing symptoms. But what happens more often in practice is precisely never stopping to see the big problem, and do the maths. No, they'll just sweep a few _symptoms_ under the carpet in this fix. E.g., you can bet that what someone will _really_ see as a "fix" is "I know, let's actually increase the damage from those enemies to 1000 HP per hit, that'll give those tanks _some_ damage." Oops, now it really one-shots _everyone_ else, whereas previously it only one-shot blasters and controllers.
Cue an endless stream of half-arsed quick-and-dirty "fixes" that try to address individual _symptoms_, including those of previous "fixes", instead of even trying to see (and simulate) the big picture.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.