Balancing around 1v1 vs group PvP

Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
edited June 16 in General Discussion
As someone who rarely engages in PvP in mmorpgs I'd like to hear everyone else's opinions on this. Often times class balancing revolves around either 1v1 or group play (very rarely can you do both). The question is, which do you prefer? Would you rather all classes be balanced around 1v1, meaning that any class can beat any other class based on skill level? Or would you prefer classes be balanced around group play?

Hypothetically of course, since we all know that true balance in games is both almost impossible and undesirable.
«1

Comments

  • ApokApok Member, Settler
    I like diversity in the games I play. I usually stuff with good PvP kinda cause I'm used to shooters and RTS games vs other people, a good MMO for me would have me focusing on PvE to begin with and branch off into PvP character builds when I start to get burned out on PvE stuff.

    I don't mind playing solo in an MMO or close to it. you can always do pick up groups, and makes online friends that way. as far as the balance goes; if you try to make an open world PvP balanced on both a PvE and PvP you do harm to your game in 2 ways.

    1. The Attributes of the game as well as the mechanics of what you can do and how you can move around and manipulate the environment needs to be kept to a minimum to ensure both a PvE and PvP balance can lead to boring stagnant gameplay over time.

    2. You cut back on half your game; keeping the diversity low, players won't need to work on separate builds and turn the game into a glamour war.
  • DamoklesDamokles Member
    edited June 16
    "There will be matchups in 1vs1 where one class will be superior to another, and that application should be a rock-paper-scissors dynamic. We want there to be counter-play between the different classes... instead its going to be a group focused balance, where as long as you have the diversity of classes present, thats going to be an equal level playing field. Its going to be very dependent on skill and strategy."

    I really like this approach tbh. I hated it, when they started to homogenize all the classes in WoW. No class should be able to fill every niche.
    A rogue should be superior to a cloth wearer because that is what they are supposed to do, while they should fail against plate wearers, because they are NOT designed to fight against armoured enemies. Rangers should be strong against tanks because they (hopefully) have the mobility to kite them and wear them down.
    uQHKizC.gif
  • AzathothAzathoth Member, Braver of Worlds
    I would prefer group balance. Balancing each class versus each other limits options and makes all the classes feel the same. Like in 4e D&D, why am I choosing a class at all when every class is practically identical?
    57597603_387667588743769_477625458809110528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=16e82247154b84484b7f627c0ac76fca&oe=5D448BDD
    +1 Skull & Crown metal coin
  • ApokApok Member, Settler
    edited June 16
    Azathoth wrote: »
    I would prefer group balance. Balancing each class versus each other limits options and makes all the classes feel the same. Like in 4e D&D, why am I choosing a class at all when every class is practically identical?

    Yeah I only played a little bit of BDO and that's the way it felt to me and I never played it sense, its like all classes are DPS classes with different ascetics and slightly different game play mechanics

    Diablo 3 is much like this as well, the game needs to be played the way the devs want you to play depending on the current season. although hardocre/softcore kinda matter. it doesn't fit the MMO template
  • bloodprophetbloodprophet Member, Braver of Worlds
    Group balance is best otherwise all the classes end up feeling the same and you lose all diversity.
    Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
  • VarkunVarkun Member, Braver of Worlds
    As the quote by @damokles shows balance will not be 1v1 but group based and as such should lead to a good deal of class diversity. The gap between the classes is supposed to be lessened with the choice of secondary class and the augments that choice will bring.

    As a player who enjoys small group pvp play I am very much looking forward to the class reveals and how they play.
    3KAqRIf.png
    Close your eyes spread your arms and always trust your cape.
  • Rock paper scissors is the best approach.
    There will always be talented players that rise above.

    I also hope the game is based on active abilities when it comes to theory crafting rather that stats. For example if you look at eso everybody claims that they have a unique build with different stats yet the active abilities are excacly the same like everybody else
  • KarthosKarthos Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited June 17
    I've become a fan of the "counter/soft counter" system. I'm going to use a non MMO game as an example but a game a wide swath of people should be familiar, Overwatch.(even though I'm not a fan of it as a whole),

    In this game, 6v6 team based shooter, there are certain classes that excel at various things. Slower but tankier characters are countered by quick or high damage characters for example.

    You have characters who are strong against others, and will usually best them simply because of the tool belt they have negates or out performs that other class.

    This is a hard counter.

    You then have others, who will do okay against the other class, but they aren't at a huge advantage. They will probably beat that class, but best done with support.

    This is a soft counter.

    Now some hard counters can be turned into soft counters because of support skills from your team, as well as some soft counters can be hard counters because of their team.

    You see your class hard counter coming, boom, you now have support class buffs from your teammates, and the fight is on.

    This is the essence of team PvP for me. Having group cohesion, allowing for your weaknesses to be filled in by other's strengths. Even though your class may be weak to one, it can be strong to another, and you should know which is which in order to have your group prioritize.

    There are of course some drawbacks, and I could get more in depth but I hate writng books on here if I can help it. But this system I feel lends itself to true meaningful team play.

    It also allows for balance of 1v1 on the macro scale. There's just some enemies you will really struggle with, and some you won't. It will in theory make people pick their battles and encourage grouping.
    Aq0KG2f.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    The group PvP is objective-based - so class balance for that is not really similar to direct PvP combat.
    Also, even the 1v1 PvP combat isn't really balanced for classes. There will be some rock-paper-scissors issues there.
  • RavudhaRavudha Member
    I prefer group balance.

    When you try to balance many classes for 1v1 they all just become too similar.

    Classes in an RPG should be designed to fit in a fully fleshed out world, with combat, utility, and personality-based skills, not constricted to being designed for arena simulations.
  • whitedude31whitedude31 Member, Founder
    Tera is a great example of a game with a fun pvp system and class builds. It is not very well balanced which adds to the fun.

    The three strongest pvp classes are Ninja>Warrior>Lancer

    Lancer is a tank with a giant shield and spear (spartan basically) and is a monster in pvp with chains that can pull and stun as well as a few abilities that allow for almost permanent stun locking if you are setup correctly and know the proper rotation. the downside is they are not very agile.

    Warrior is a dual-wielding sword user and is basically Kirito. It is a very quick and single-target focused class. Also capable of stun locking anyone and if you get caught by a warrior then you are dead unless you are a ninja or lancer.

    The ninja was designed to be a pure pvp class. It is not very useful in pve, but could get by. I have watched skilled people play ninja and walk through 5-10 people before being caught and brought down in arena pvp. They are extremely agile and has a lot of aoe, cc, and evasion skills, as well as some skills that make them completely invincible for 2-3 seconds at a time. They are naruto in a nutshell XD BROKEN AS FUCK
  • KarthosKarthos Member, Braver of Worlds
    Tera is a great example of a game with a fun pvp system and class builds. It is not very well balanced which adds to the fun.

    The three strongest pvp classes are Ninja>Warrior>Lancer

    Lancer is a tank with a giant shield and spear (spartan basically) and is a monster in pvp with chains that can pull and stun as well as a few abilities that allow for almost permanent stun locking if you are setup correctly and know the proper rotation. the downside is they are not very agile.

    Warrior is a dual-wielding sword user and is basically Kirito. It is a very quick and single-target focused class. Also capable of stun locking anyone and if you get caught by a warrior then you are dead unless you are a ninja or lancer.

    The ninja was designed to be a pure pvp class. It is not very useful in pve, but could get by. I have watched skilled people play ninja and walk through 5-10 people before being caught and brought down in arena pvp. They are extremely agile and has a lot of aoe, cc, and evasion skills, as well as some skills that make them completely invincible for 2-3 seconds at a time. They are naruto in a nutshell XD BROKEN AS FUCK

    This sounds... Terrible.

    Why go any other class than Ninja if you're going to PvP?

    And perma stun locking is dumb. I was glad when they addressed this on the last live stream and said it wouldn't likely be in AoC.
    Aq0KG2f.png
  • whitedude31whitedude31 Member, Founder
    edited June 18
    Karthos wrote: »
    Tera is a great example of a game with a fun pvp system and class builds. It is not very well balanced which adds to the fun.

    The three strongest pvp classes are Ninja>Warrior>Lancer

    Lancer is a tank with a giant shield and spear (spartan basically) and is a monster in pvp with chains that can pull and stun as well as a few abilities that allow for almost permanent stun locking if you are setup correctly and know the proper rotation. the downside is they are not very agile.

    Warrior is a dual-wielding sword user and is basically Kirito. It is a very quick and single-target focused class. Also capable of stun locking anyone and if you get caught by a warrior then you are dead unless you are a ninja or lancer.

    The ninja was designed to be a pure pvp class. It is not very useful in pve, but could get by. I have watched skilled people play ninja and walk through 5-10 people before being caught and brought down in arena pvp. They are extremely agile and has a lot of aoe, cc, and evasion skills, as well as some skills that make them completely invincible for 2-3 seconds at a time. They are naruto in a nutshell XD BROKEN AS FUCK

    This sounds... Terrible.

    Why go any other class than Ninja if you're going to PvP?

    And perma stun locking is dumb. I was glad when they addressed this on the last live stream and said it wouldn't likely be in AoC.

    Because ninjas get kicked from many pve activities for being near useless.

    There are a lot of people that would take the buff healer mystic instead of a ninja because they will buff AND do more dps half the time. PVP-wise the ninja may be the best at killing, but if you want to make someone rage and throw their pc out a window even if they are a top tier pvp player in the best gear, then play a priest :smiley: Priests are by far the most annoying class to fight in pvp because even a mediocre priest in average gear can stop that ninja from killing them just by being the most obnoxious asshat you can imagine :smiley: It is great hearing people rage when I tortured them with my priest. Sleep them (lasts 12 seconds), dance in front of them, drop heals at your feet, so when they wake up you dont die until the cooldown finishes for your sleep and repeat. The anger people feel for priests is great, I love the tears :smile: BUT I refuse to ever fight a priest because I know they will do it to me XD

    The stun lock is a bit much, but for the most part every class has pro and a con. Like ninjas, they may be the best class for pvp (some argue it is a the warrior and in some situations I admit they are), but can be put down easily since they are cloth wearers and only need to be caught once and they die nearly instantly.
  • consultantconsultant Member
    edited June 27
    Well Steve said a while ago that pvp balance was going to be around the 3v3 bracket.
    Technically each bracket although similar is a differtent game. For example a class could be over powered in 1v1 an not in 5v5 or 3v3. Oddly enought just going from 2v2 to 3v3 brackets requires a jump in skill and different strategies.

    So Ideally there should be pvp game balance per bracket. So the class that is great and over powered in 1V1 will be nerfed in 1v1 but since it would be impractical to have the same class as part of your 3v3 then they would get buffed in 3v3. But this gets into a lot of game mechanics. Same thing for bigger maps like 100vs100
    Whatis true in 100vs100 might not be true in 3v3 as far as comps and which is best class to have.

    But think Steves statement about balancing pvp around the 3v3 bracket is a sound choice without getting over involved with game mechanics.
  • burnthefernburnthefern Member, Settler
    consultant wrote: »
    Well Steve said a while ago that pvp balance was going to be around the 3v3 bracket.
    Technically each bracket although similar is a differtent game. For example a class could be over powered in 1v1 an not in 5v5 or 3v3. Oddly enought just going from 2v2 to 3v3 brackets requires a jump in skill and different strategies.

    So Ideally there should be pvp game balance per bracket. So the class that is great and over powered in 1V1 will be nerfed in 1v1 but since it would be impractical to have the same class as part of your 3v3 then they would get buffed in 3v3. But this gets into a lot of game mechanics. Same thing for bigger maps like 100vs100
    Whatis true in 100vs100 might not be true in 3v3 as far as comps and which is best class to have.

    But think Steves statement about balancing pvp around the 3v3 bracket is a sound choice without getting over involved with game mechanics.

    I'm curious as to where you got the 3v3 figure when it comes to balance. Last I heard it was just a general "group" focused balance, without a specific size mentioned. Can't find anything on the wiki either.
  • KarthosKarthos Member, Braver of Worlds
    @burnthefern

    The only thing I can find that this could be taken from is this quote.

    "The idea behind the system is that you're kind of skirting the line through these augmentations of your role, right. We have the traditional holy trinity that's present in class designs for MMOs and it's often that those either are not deviated at all or completely deviated from entirely. The augment is to kind of offer a balance between that where you still maintain the semblance of that trinity system while offering the opportunity to customize your play experience towards one of the other angles in the triangle." – Steven Sharif

    Pulled from https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Roles#Balancing


    Holy Trinity is however not the same as 3v3 but could be where OP got it from,not knowing what the term really means.
    Aq0KG2f.png
  • eragaleeragale Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited June 27
    As someone who rarely engages in PvP in mmorpgs I'd like to hear everyone else's opinions on this. Often times class balancing revolves around either 1v1 or group play (very rarely can you do both). The question is, which do you prefer? Would you rather all classes be balanced around 1v1, meaning that any class can beat any other class based on skill level? Or would you prefer classes be balanced around group play?

    Hypothetically of course, since we all know that true balance in games is both almost impossible and undesirable.

    In a game with Open-World PvP .. 1v1s are going to happen inevitably. However, there's another way to look at this.

    Group-Play incentivizes more PvE-play ( more so than Solo-play )
    Solo-Play Incentivizes more PvP-play ( more so than Group-Play )
    • However, we all know that its a bit more complicated than that - both Group-Play and Solo-play intertwines with each other - some of which has more emphasis than others

    such as .. DaoC, ShadowBane and DarkFall being more PvP-oriented. And EQ and SWG being more PvE-oriented ( or PvE-friendly) .

    Very similar to that saying … " both sides of the same coin " ( but with (slightly) different results )

    At the end of the day, Group-Play is more prevalent in both PvE and PvP ( Arena-PvP & Open-World PvP ). The major difference being that PvE has a .. better track-record of retaining more players.
    • However, pessimistically-speaking … group-play could indirectly promote zerging. Depending on how you define " Solo-Play " .. the way too counter this could be Solo-play … but that's actually Player-Skill difference. The issue with Solo-Play .. is that is has not been fully defined yet - its still an empty page, still a blank canvas.

    Neither is preferred over the other - I like group-play and 1v1 equally.
    But group-play has the potential to add diversity for 1v1s - they both intertwine.
    Rather than thinking that 1v1s & group-play function in contradiction with each other … they could function in a way that compliments ( or assist ) one another ( the image below )



    I really hope this makes sense

    rock-paper-scissors-3.jpg


    EDIT: And if this just a rough-representation of the Base/Primary Archetypes, imagine what the this might look like with the Secondary Archetypes included :0
  • KarthosKarthos Member, Braver of Worlds
    So how does a tree beat a wolf?
    Aq0KG2f.png
  • AzryilAzryil Member, Leader of Men
    Balancing around 1v1 would be a ultimately end in homogenizing the classes similar to what we've seen in the changes made to WoW over the years. I think that balancing around group play is the better option and would result in much more strategic PvP encounters. It would be interesting to see large scale battles resemble an RST in some fashion where group leaders could call out or mark targets and we could see strategies that revolve around countering opposing groups.
    Cleric in the back healing, send in the rogue to take them out quickly. Tanks pushing the front line, have the mage rain a fiery death from above. Rogues sneaking around, send in the rangers to light them up.

    k2U15J3.png
  • eragaleeragale Member, Braver of Worlds
    Karthos wrote: »
    So how does a tree beat a wolf?

    xD

    its not a literal representation of the real thing, its just to give an idea as to what their going for ( or so i think )
  • IshkaIshka Member
    Hello there mates, I would prefer the classes to be "reasonably unbalanced" in 1v1. So the idea of the classes being perfectly balanced is bad & boring in my eyes. What would be better is all classes having strenghts & weaknesses, and the victory would be in the hand of the one who knows how to exploit these things.
    I always felt it was necessary to have good & bad match-up against classes. When facing your counter, even if the defeat is unavoidable, the skill would permit do die honourably by giving a hell of a hard time to the opponnent.
    I hope that in AOC the classes will be made in a way where even if the fight is hard, there is enough depth to the mechanics that you can make some sort of comeback. You see those fights were you wait for the one & only opportunity to overturn the situation and take the control of the fight are the best ones.

    Regarding the group pvp, I can't think of a "balance" at all, what is a balanced group fight in your eyes ?

    I mostly did group fights like 6*max vs X ennemies and very rarely large scale battles. And depending on the current situation & many aspects, it was different everytime.

    To me the "group balance" would not depend on how the classes are made but how one is able to synergyse with it's teamates and make the best use of their tools. Be it like wombo combos, tactics, or even strategies in large scale battles.

    To summ it up my view of balance would be that knowledges & mastery would bring greater power than things like bad match-ups, stats etc... So the classes would be balanced in the way they all provide very a high skill ceiling. Basicaly if you know the game & how to fight, then you may be able to win.
  • That is what Steve said in an older video maybe since then he has a different vision but definitely said it.
  • eragaleeragale Member, Braver of Worlds
    edited June 28
    consultant wrote: »
    That is what Steve said in an older video maybe since then he has a different vision but definitely said it.

    at 40:15

  • it was a Q and A video were they were taking questions from community not content creators so...
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Leader of Men
    All very possible. Where early on we had very few sources of information and whatever Steven said was gospel and canon, that is no longer the case. They have gone on various podcasts, streams, and others without any sort of announcement or backup that many "clarifications of vision" have been missed by even the most dedicated Ashhole. And the understanding now that anything said before the Age of Maggie was just them talking out their ass and they get a mulligan is concerning also. In the end you will get what you get and you will play it, scream, rant, whisper all you like, it is not going to impact anything at this point.
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • consultantconsultant Member
    edited June 28
    All very possible. Where early on we had very few sources of information and whatever Steven said was gospel and canon, that is no longer the case. They have gone on various podcasts, streams, and others without any sort of announcement or backup that many "clarifications of vision" have been missed by even the most dedicated Ashhole. And the understanding now that anything said before the Age of Maggie was just them talking out their ass and they get a mulligan is concerning also. In the end you will get what you get and you will play it, scream, rant, whisper all you like, it is not going to impact anything at this point.


    Not quite sure were you are comming from. Forums are designed to discuss things do not see screaming or ranting kind of like a child I suppose you were trying to implicate.

    You will get it and you will play it Yes seen this type of post from you on numerous times. Most of the time bringing down the hammer on ideas that are contrary Ashes of Creation. Think you are on some Crusade to stand up for Ashes of Creation thing is no war going on here.

    In my last post just wanted to say that I was not mistaken or fed this forum inaccurate information. He actaully did say that. Does not mean I am making demands or ranting or screaming. Maybe it is all that is in your head. I type one way and you read another way.

    As far as it is not going to impact anything at this point heard that before I tried to to tell you this but you will not listen.

    The point at which were most things do not have any impact is Beta By that time they are just polishing up the game making final tweets and testing it out on real servers. So No I do not expect to many changes at that pont.

    Further more I like to add game balance is not finalized at luanch by any means. One of the devs said PvP game balance is an ongoing thing like for the next 50 years. It is not like asking for an undead campaign. PvP game balance is cheap and not so time consuming. It is all game mechanics.

    So Even after launch posts like this could have an impact on the game and I will gaurantee you players will be posting about pvp gamebalance for the entire life the game.

    Really do not know where you get this do not post does not make a difference mentallity. Cause it has already been decided. Seen you do those types of posts before. I remember you making a post about how people sound like cry babies too or something like that to just take the game as is. Maybe it is in your mind.

    Really which posts do think are ranting and screaming. Now before you answer you will not be telling anything about the posts you will only be telling me How your mind perceives what you read.

  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Leader of Men
    consultant wrote: »
    Well Steve said a while ago that pvp balance was going to be around the 3v3 bracket.
    Technically each bracket although similar is a differtent game. For example a class could be over powered in 1v1 an not in 5v5 or 3v3. Oddly enought just going from 2v2 to 3v3 brackets requires a jump in skill and different strategies.

    So Ideally there should be pvp game balance per bracket. So the class that is great and over powered in 1V1 will be nerfed in 1v1 but since it would be impractical to have the same class as part of your 3v3 then they would get buffed in 3v3. But this gets into a lot of game mechanics. Same thing for bigger maps like 100vs100
    Whatis true in 100vs100 might not be true in 3v3 as far as comps and which is best class to have.

    But think Steves statement about balancing pvp around the 3v3 bracket is a sound choice without getting over involved with game mechanics.

    You made this statement about balance being around 3v3 brackets. While they have said multiple times that balance is going to be a constant process and that they plan on basing it on group dynamics, no one else remembers it being "3v3 brackets". You were asked to provide a citation and gave the "I know I heard that before." excuse. Now if you can find it I will admit that is something I and many others may have missed, but I think like usual you are just spinning shit to fit the narrative you want to happen. The problem that is to be avoided is newer people looking for information then quote you and bullshit takes on a life of its own.
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • JahlonJahlon Member
    consultant wrote: »
    Well Steve said a while ago that pvp balance was going to be around the 3v3 bracket.
    Technically each bracket although similar is a differtent game. For example a class could be over powered in 1v1 an not in 5v5 or 3v3. Oddly enought just going from 2v2 to 3v3 brackets requires a jump in skill and different strategies.

    So Ideally there should be pvp game balance per bracket. So the class that is great and over powered in 1V1 will be nerfed in 1v1 but since it would be impractical to have the same class as part of your 3v3 then they would get buffed in 3v3. But this gets into a lot of game mechanics. Same thing for bigger maps like 100vs100
    Whatis true in 100vs100 might not be true in 3v3 as far as comps and which is best class to have.

    But think Steves statement about balancing pvp around the 3v3 bracket is a sound choice without getting over involved with game mechanics.

    Can we get citation for this 3v3 bracket being what balance is based around?

    I have most citations, but I don't have this one.
    PQHgamQ.png
  • bloodprophetbloodprophet Member, Braver of Worlds
    Did they not say group size was "tentatively 8" and balance was around the group vs 1v1?
    Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    Did they not say group size was "tentatively 8" and balance was around the group vs 1v1?

    That's for instanced-based PvE, but I don't know if that will apply to PvP or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.