Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Anyone who says Intrepid has a handle on balance is sorely mistaken. They're probably just going to run with the imbalance, and only nerf the most extreme of outliers. It's going to be like a CCG, where some cards/combinations are just stronger, and it's part of the game to correctly identify which ones are good.
Thankfully, most of the game will not be competitive in nature, so players don't have to worry too much about being pigeon-holed into the top 10% of "optimal meta builds".
Well..the game will be pretty competitive. Everything about the node system and PvP is competitive. There's constant struggle for power and resources and players are in the middle of it. If this isn't competitive then nothing is
Community believes game is over a year from being released, and we already have people claiming IS just doesn't care. This is awesome, and why I come here daily. It's nice to assume people and things will fail, it prevents us from being disappointed. In today's world, being disappointed is tantamount to life crisis.
I suppose even if this dreary outlook is accurate, is the point there is nothing we can do about anyways?
I don't see why there is a need to balance both. We all have the same options to build the same characters. We know classes will have strengths/weaknesses specific to other classes in the paper-rock-scissors manner. A call from the players to alter character stats/gear/abilities because they want to PvP against a PvE target in a 'fair' manner does not make sense to me.
If you pick a fight with a player/character and lose, it's not always because of the 'build'.
If a character picks a fight with you, and you lose, it's not always because of the 'build'.
I don't think "git gud" is a fair statement either, but maybe the world is equally dangerous for the PvP players as it is the PvE players? To me, that would make sense.
Any game can be competitive, comes down to the community. If the hardcore PvPers don't enjoy the gameplay and quit the competitive scene goes with it. Considering Ashes will be very popular there will be a competitive PvP scene for at least a few months.
Here is the kicker though... All this outcry and changes to the spells in the game came before people actually earned their pvp armor sets, which reduced spell damage further. That 6k spell? Now did 180 damage on a critical hit (45s recast). Fighters became juggernauts... High armor, high magic resistance, the artificial spell damage reduction (from initial outcry), and could auto attack with their swords for over 1k damage a swing. Mages back then only averaged 800 to 1500 HPs.. But I guess that type of one-two-shoting people is okay..
Point? Being one-shot isn't fun, but neither is a single paladin (or shadowknight) taking on an entire group of mages without a worry in the world. What ended up in those pvp matches? you guessed it, mostly all tanks and healers.
I gave it a bit longer then just stopped pvp in that game altogether. Balance never really returned.. Now there is so much stat-bloat in the game it's ridiculous.
Should two (of any class combination) be able to take each other on 1v1.. I do not believe so. Some classes just have a clear advantage, be it "the big nuke" or "ranged arrows" or Stealth/invisibility... I don't envy those in charge of balancing abilities/spells.. not one bit.. They should get extra days off for stress...
Best pvp I've had to this date, was planetside one back in the day.. incredible.. But that's another subject..
So many arguments...
I don't think there will be some sort of balance obtained here never before seen, but I do think IS will try to find something reasonable.
"If the hardcore PvPers don't enjoy the gameplay and quit the competitive scene goes with it."
Well, I suppose the PvP Competitive game play would obviously suffer. I don't think the competitive scene as a whole would go. PvE can be competitive.
And it will be impossible to balance because the devs aren't even interested in having all the primary archetypes balanced for PvP combat, outside of that rock/paper/scissors model.
Each class should be different in big and small ways.
Why do people always want "balance"? Making everything the same is bad design for and RPG.
I don't expect my mage to stand toe to toe with a rogue. I expect to have to move and find a way to win.
Balance was sorely was misunderstood by the Jedi as well.
2 Sith and a 1000+ Jedi is not balance.
Making all the classes do the same damage and take the same damage is poor competition.
Hence why I also find NASCAR boring. All the cars are the same no variance makes for stale and boring game play no mater the sport.
I see balance as useful since it's an attempt to measure how players can impact the world and each other. It is somewhat used as one key metric in assessing fairness with respect to player effort vs reward. To that end, it is highly interwoven with player identity.
IMHO balance has become a prevalent theme because it's very hard for the RPG aspect of MMOs to keep up with combat. Thus, combat has become quite focal in the game experience, and balance accordingly has been weighted heavily with combat metrics.
I hope to see a future where MMOs entail heavier RPG elements so that player experience is less about number crunching and more about simply feeling rewarded for effort put in. Horizontal progression systems are a great way to do that.
They don't really care that RPGs are designed for group play and having each of the individual classes rely on the strengths and weaknesses of the others. They don't care about the role each individual class has in the group - they care about being a good enough player that they can kill any individual they encounter, regardless of class choice. They think a Rogue in leather armor should be able to easily defeat a Paladin in plate if the Rogue player is great at PvP combat.
Their focus is on the skills of the individual players rather than on the combat roles of the individual characters.
Not really, if they didn't care about the RPG aspects then why would the care about class balance. They could just pick the most OP class and be good to go. The truth is they like RPGs and don't want to be punished for playing the class they like.
“Balance” people call for is usually self-centered, aimed for their benefit so their preferences are the strongest. True balance should be a rock, paper, scissors style that Intrepid so far seems to be going for. It allows for unique play styles between classes, and makes certain matchups preferred over others.
With the FPS/“just hop in and play” sort of balance involves bland playstyles, with minimal value of character choices.
This video may be old but it sums up the balance debate very well in my opinion. One thing I will add is that the more different gameplay elements you put into a game, the harder it is to balance, which is why games like Pokemon will never be anywhere close to balanced. There are simply too many options for the devs to handle.
hahaha hahaha did you really use extra credit
Is there a problem?
It may well be that some players feel punished because they have inflated, unrealistic expectations of what their class should be able to do (i.e. be a well-rounded combatant while retaining it's RPG paradigm's characteristics). I think there are certainly cases like this that essentially overlap with @Dygz 's statement.
Exactly this. Players want their characters to be strong, which means anything they perceive as stronger, whether it’s actually stronger overall or just a good matchup against their class in a 1v1, both scenarios are viewed under the guise of the class that defeats them as being overpowered.
A roleplayer can choose the mage and focus on an offensive augment class, but they have no right to cry OP when an assassin is able to get in close and kill them off. That scenario is unfortunately exactly how it so often goes. As they say:
“Nerf rock, paper is fine” - Scissors
Rather than rock, paper, scissors - which is how RPGs are designed - balanced for group v group; not for 1v1.
You guys might have to expand on this for me.
I don't know either of these proves me wrong and seem beside the point. Dygz said that people who want perfect balance, want it because they don't like rpg elements. I disagreed with that saying that people could want perfect balance because they want to be able to pick a class off without worrying about combat performance. I also postulated that a person who didn't care about RPG elements wouldn't care about the class they play so they should be fine with picking the class the performs the best. I don't think saying they want it for selfish reasons proves what i said wrong.
You can assume motive all you like and say they have all the bad intentions in the world but I don't think it's weird or malicious for someone to want to be able to pick a class without worrying about who it's strong and weak against.
Would it make you feel better if i said i wasn't for perfect balance and support rock, paper,scissors balance? I'm really just pointing out an issue i see with dygz's logic.
I'm not sure if rock, paper, scissors is core to an RPG but if it is, does it really mean that a person can only enjoy an rpg if they enjoy that aspect of it? Can't people enjoy rpg class systems without enjoying rock, paper, scissors combat? I don't think it's that weird for a person who enjoys the aesthetic and lore of the wizard class to also not like auto losing to the warrior class that counters them. I don't think that person hates all RPG aspects because they want the game balanced so they stand a chance in that fight.
This is what we mean. Your idea of balance removes the impact of class choice, a key part of any RPG. If every class has the same relative strength to each other, with no particular strengths or weaknesses, then the game may as well not have any classes at all.
You choose your class knowing it cannot defeat every type of enemy. MMORPGs are balanced around groups, where people make up for each other’s weak spots.
I'm not advocating for "perfect balance" as I said. Im just against the idea the all people who want it are against rpgs. I agree with classes having different strengths and weaknesses.
Assuming we are talking about the 8 base archetypes, we kind of have the option for both with how open the class system is as well as the other progression systems you can advance in. Not saying we have perfect 1v1 balance but we know that you can use the different forms of horizontal progression to either try to cover up your weaknesses or double down on your strengths. Once again, won't be perfect balance but there are a lot of options, A lot more then people are used to.
Despite I am OK with group vs group balance, what you wrote is not true. The same relative strength does not mean your class do not have strengths and weakness. The different game-style define the classes.
example:
mage vs rouge:
rouge can hide, can silent the mage, etc if use his skills properly the rouge can win.
mage can use detect invisiblity, can freeze the rouge, can teleport if use his skill properly the mage can win.
mage vs cleric:
cleric can heal himself, can use curses, can remove harmful spells etc if use his skills properly the cleric can win.
mage can use dispell HoT spells, can remove curse, etc if use his skills properly the mage can win
mage vs warrior:
warrior can jump, can knock down, can make bleed damage, can use shield, etc, if use his skills the warrior can win
mage can burn, can freeze, can teleport if use his skill properly the mage can win.
As you can see they are balanced, but all classes are different. They can have much other non combat or group/support skills, the play-style is different so you can't say your class choice has no impact or it reduce the RPG part. Not even that we do not have any classes.
I still believe balancing for PvP or PvE only in a PvX game is not the right way to go. I do think asking for abilities/stats/etc. to be altered in PvP is a cheap move. Players that build PvP focused characters will obviously have an advantage against players that prefer a PvE character/game-play.
If, as a PvP player, your primary concern is rather or not the PvE focused player will be able to beat you because of their build, I would argue you are doing PvP incorrectly. Find other PvP players to challenge, join some form of alliance/guild to have access to other PvP players to travel with, and make sure your skill set is up to what ever PvE challenger you agro.
RPGs are balanced so that each class/role in a group as strengths and weaknesses that the other classes don't have - so that each individual character has to rely on the other characters in the group to succeed - rather than being balanced so that any individual player can fairly commonly beat any other player 1v1 - especially if one of the players is a better player than the other.
A gamer might still prefer to play one class more than the other, but a gamer who wants the classes to be balanced evenly for 1v1 combat doesn't care about the group combat roles those classes are designed for in an RPG.
If classes are evenly balanced, I don't understand how it's possible for one class to perform the best.
I never said that gamers who want the classes to be evenly balanced for 1v1 combat have bad intentions or that it's weird or malicious. It's just counter to roleplay -
Specifically, role each class was designed to play within a group.
It's kind of like wanting everyone in soccer to be able to control the ball with their hands, instead of leaving that feature something only the goal keeper can do.
Would it make you feel better if i said i wasn't for perfect balance and support rock, paper,scissors balance? I'm really just pointing out an issue i see with dygz's logic.
Especially in MMORPGs, players can enjoy playing all kinds of ways.
Even though MMORPGS are designed for characters to level almost exclusively through killing stuff, some players still find ways to level to max with no kills or to level to max with no deaths. Players can spend all of their time soloing or all of their time crafting.
But, what we're really talking about here is the dev philosophy. It's no different than asking for separate PvE or RP servers. If the devs want to support that, great. That's the way they've chosen to design their game.
If the devs have chosen not to support that, we just have to wait to see if they're able to grab the numbers of players they're hoping to attract.
If the devs have chosen to return to a more traditional RPG class balance -"rock, paper, scissors"- then, we have to wait to see if they can attract the numbers of players they're hoping to attract.
It's interesting, though, how I say that gamers don't really care about the RPG elements of MMORPGs and you mirror back that I said they "don't like the RPG elements" and then escalate that to they "hate all RPG elements".
Except... you are the only person who has said, "all people who want it are against rpgs".
I'm not aware of anyone else here stating that as a point of discussion.
The dev philosophy is to balance in order to promote a rock, paper, scissors relationship for the primary archetypes. Augments aren't really going to change those relationships significantly.