I would be okay with them designing a game that was balanced for PvP first, and then mobs balanced to those classes second. If the class is effective in PvP I don't see any reason why monsters/npcs/bosses/etc. can't be balance around that. That way all builds would be equally* effective in PvP and PvE.
As opposed to building all the PvE classes, balancing all the creatures and what not around those, and then trying to balance PvP by adding rule sets for gear/stats/abilities/etc.
*by equally I do not mean all classes are equal, just that they are all balanced in relation to each other and the paper-rock-scissors theme IS is shooting for.
The thing is that it's almost impossible to design AI to act the way a human does, especially in a game. The best you can do is give the mobs a set of "if, then" statements in their code that give the illusion of intelligence. Because of this there will always be builds that are more effective in PvP than PvE, regardless of how Intrepid balance it.
Sometimes you just bum me out man
I do understand that, and increasing mob AI will decrease the total number of players that enjoy that content.
I would still totally be okay with them pulling it off though.
+1 Skull & Crown metal coin
0
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I would be okay with them designing a game that was balanced for PvP first, and then mobs balanced to those classes second. If the class is effective in PvP I don't see any reason why monsters/npcs/bosses/etc. can't be balance around that. That way all builds would be equally* effective in PvP and PvE.
As opposed to building all the PvE classes, balancing all the creatures and what not around those, and then trying to balance PvP by adding rule sets for gear/stats/abilities/etc.
*by equally I do not mean all classes are equal, just that they are all balanced in relation to each other and the paper-rock-scissors theme IS is shooting for.
The thing is that it's almost impossible to design AI to act the way a human does, especially in a game. The best you can do is give the mobs a set of "if, then" statements in their code that give the illusion of intelligence. Because of this there will always be builds that are more effective in PvP than PvE, regardless of how Intrepid balance it.
Sometimes you just bum me out man
I do understand that, and increasing mob AI will decrease the total number of players that enjoy that content.
I would still totally be okay with them pulling it off though.
haha sorry for being the party-pooper on all the suggestions here :P
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I could be wrong but i don't think those arguing for 1v1 balancing are arguing for classes to be equal in all regards and instead want classes to have an equal chance to win against the other classes.
Classes still have their own playstyle, with the strengths and weaknesses that come with that playstyle, but in a 1v1 fight, they have a decent chance of winning against one another.
In a group environment, classes still have their different strengths and it's optimal for a group to utilize those strengths. It's a waste if you have classes performing a role they are not the best at. The tank is still going to be better at tanking damage then the mage. The mage might be able to keep itself away from 1 enemy but it gets a lot harder when there are more.
Nope. Because if each class can defeat all of the other classes 1v1, there is no need for the tank to tank for the mage in group combat. The mage won't need a warrior to tank. And the mages won't need healers to heal them more than than tanks need healers to heal them. Because the mages and tanks will be equally balanced.
Sure, the tanks will be using tank abilities and the mages will be using mage abilities - but it will be kinda like saying an Ice mage is using different abilities than a Fire mage.
Yes, if you need heals, you need a healer and i don't think anyone that wants 1v1 balance think you should be able to be your own healer...unless you are a healer class, in which case you will probably want a tank.
Nope. There are other ways to heal besides relying on a healer.
But, it's not a matter of whether healers aren't "needed" or wanted in battle, it's about the strategies revolving around who needs how much healing compared to others, in addition to positioning to keep specific classes safe and directing crowd control. If the classes are balanced for 1v1 against every other class, then all of that stuff also becomes equalized across the classes.
Balancing for 1v1 means that mages cannot be glass cannons.
Why can't you have the tanky tank and the glass cannon mage serve different roles in a group but still be competitive against one another? The tank can take a lot of damage but not deal much and the mage can deal alot of damage but not take a lot. You can have the mage deal twice the damage of the tank and the tank be able to take twice the damage of the mage and you would have an even fight while still giving them each a strength. This a really simple way of looking at it but it at least prove a concept.
Because to balance for 1v1, the mage cannot be glass cannon. The reason that mages are designed as glass cannons is specifically so that tanks can protect them in group combat.
A mage is not going to be able to kite a tank because Tanks have Lasso to real ranged folk in. So, balancing for 1v1 would mean that mages have to be able to survive melee combat longer and that Lasso is just as effective at grappling distant mages as a mage's kiting or ranged nuking abilities.
Again, balancing for 1v1 is mutually exclusive from balancing for group combat roles.
2
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I could be wrong but i don't think those arguing for 1v1 balancing are arguing for classes to be equal in all regards and instead want classes to have an equal chance to win against the other classes.
Classes still have their own playstyle, with the strengths and weaknesses that come with that playstyle, but in a 1v1 fight, they have a decent chance of winning against one another.
In a group environment, classes still have their different strengths and it's optimal for a group to utilize those strengths. It's a waste if you have classes performing a role they are not the best at. The tank is still going to be better at tanking damage then the mage. The mage might be able to keep itself away from 1 enemy but it gets a lot harder when there are more.
Nope. Because if each class can defeat all of the other classes 1v1, there is no need for the tank to tank for the mage in group combat. The mage won't need a warrior to tank. And the mages won't need healers to heal them more than than tanks need healers to heal them. Because the mages and tanks will be equally balanced.
Sure, the tanks will be using tank abilities and the mages will be using mage abilities - but it will be kinda like saying an Ice mage is using different abilities than a Fire mage.
Yes, if you need heals, you need a healer and i don't think anyone that wants 1v1 balance think you should be able to be your own healer...unless you are a healer class, in which case you will probably want a tank.
Nope. There are other ways to heal besides relying on a healer.
But, it's not a matter of whether healers aren't "needed" or wanted in battle, it's about the strategies revolving around who needs how much healing compared to others, in addition to positioning to keep specific classes safe and directing crowd control. If the classes are balanced for 1v1 against every other class, then all of that stuff also becomes equalized across the classes.
Balancing for 1v1 means that mages cannot be glass cannons.
Why can't you have the tanky tank and the glass cannon mage serve different roles in a group but still be competitive against one another? The tank can take a lot of damage but not deal much and the mage can deal alot of damage but not take a lot. You can have the mage deal twice the damage of the tank and the tank be able to take twice the damage of the mage and you would have an even fight while still giving them each a strength. This a really simple way of looking at it but it at least prove a concept.
Because to balance for 1v1, the mage cannot be glass cannon. The reason that mages are designed as glass cannons is specifically so that tanks can protect them in group combat.
A mage is not going to be able to kite a tank because Tanks have Lasso to real ranged folk in. So, balancing for 1v1 would mean that mages have to be able to survive melee combat longer and that Lasso is just as effective at grappling distant mages as a mage's kiting or ranged nuking abilities.
Again, balancing for 1v1 is mutually exclusive from balancing for group combat roles.
Ok, you brought up the pax demo balance which i think we can talk about. We both can agree that the tank and the mage had different strengths and weaknesses in the pax demo. The tank had more health as well abilities defensive and CC abilities. The mage on the other hand had less health, damage abilities, as well as some utility abilties that included mobility and defensive cooldowns. I think we both can agree that on the pve side of the game, the mage should not tank.
I don't remember exactly how the matchup played out but it was some balance to it. I don't remember one class completely dominating the other.
On the tanks side, the tank had tools like the grapple to pull the mage and the absorb shield to mitigate the mages damage. If mages had an advantage in the matchup and tanks felt like it was really hard to win against a mage, these abilities could be buffed to give a tank a better chance. Allowing the warrior to pull more often or absorb more damage would naturally increase it's chance of winning.
On the mages side, the mage had several abilities to deal with the tank. They had their freeze, blink, as well as mirror image that helped decrease the damage they took. If the tank had the advantage in the matchup and mages felt it was really hard to win against them then these abilities could be adjusted to make it easier for the mage to survive.
These are of course not the only ways you could help out one of the classes, just thought they were some easy examples. On the other side, these abilities can also be nerfed to help with balance. If mages are way to tricky for tanks to catch up to, maybe you need to increase the cooldown of their blink. Decreasing the lasso cooldown so a tank can pull more doesn't make it so the tank doesn't have to heal in a boss fight and just because the mage use mirror image a little more often doesn't mean the mage isn't going to be 2 shot by a boss the moment it drops off.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I didn't bring up the PAX demo balance.
If the classes are balanced for 1v1 duels, there won't be much of a need to "tank". People can just use the abilities they have to dps. And clerics would probably be able to focus on dps rather than healing the party as well.
You don't remember one class completely dominating the other because it wasn't 1v1 PvP combat, it was 4v4 PvP combat. And the combat was objective-based rather than simply direct PvP combat.
I don't know why you keep trying to bring up heals as meaningful to this conversation. I especially don't know why you would comment on the need for tanks to be healed. In a discussion about combat roles, tanks, mages and healing, it's the mages that need to be worried about healing... way more than the tanks.
Neither Lasso nor Blink need to be nerfed.
The purpose of Lasso is to keep mobs locked on the tanks and away from the mages. And the purpose of Blink is also to help mages avoid damage from the mobs while they nuke the mobs that are focused on the tank(s).
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You can have 1v1 balance and still have a need for a tank. Players don't do as much damage as a boss. A class can be considered a glass cannon, survive being hit by players while still be killed quickly by a boss.
The pax map was big enough that you have a 1v1. In an objective based game, you can still have a 1v1 even if it doesn't contribute to the victory.
I bring up heals as an example of a group role that players usually need in a pve environment. If the tank is doing their job, they should be needing the most heals as they should be tanking the damage. Tanks aren't supposed to be 100% immune to damage. Just supposed to be designed to keep mob attention and mitigate damage while doing so.
Yes, lasso and blink are useful in pve, i think that is beside the point.
IMO, the only time 1v1 should be a thing in Ashes is in a 1v1 arena.
If someone is attacking you, the best solution is always to get a friend.
Balancing the game on the concept of 1v1 when that entire concept can be thrown out the window simply by making use of the fact that the game is multiplayer just seems short sighted to me.
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yes, lasso and blink are useful in pve, i think that is beside the point.
It's not beside the point. It is the entire point.
Then tell me the point.
We are talking about how 1v1 pvp balance affects roles and how you claim that you can't have 1v1 balance without making all classes the same. You claim that if you can't balance for the 1v1 without removing all classes strengths and weaknesses. Only relevance i see from that statement is if you are trying to bring up those abilities balance in a pve setting which i say is beside the point as you can also balance mobs/encounters around how you have balanced these classes for 1v1s. Making it so a mage can survive the damage one tank can do after pulling them doesn't mean they have the same survivability as a tank in pve encounters.
IMO, the only time 1v1 should be a thing in Ashes is in a 1v1 arena.
If someone is attacking you, the best solution is always to get a friend.
Balancing the game on the concept of 1v1 when that entire concept can be thrown out the window simply by making use of the fact that the game is multiplayer just seems short sighted to me.
If this is directed at my comments then i'd like to say my argument is about wither classes can be balanced for 1v1 while still having different strengths and weakness.
I don't think classes should have separate balance in 1v1 arenas and also unsure how possible it is here. With the variety of build and gear options, it would be a nightmare to attempt unless stripped out some customization options.
Sorry if i'm blind but where have you clarified how bringing up those abilities usefulness in PVE supports your argument that you can't have classes with strengths and weaknesses in a environment where they are balanced for the 1v1.
I could be wrong but i don't think those arguing for 1v1 balancing are arguing for classes to be equal in all regards and instead want classes to have an equal chance to win against the other classes.
Classes still have their own playstyle, with the strengths and weaknesses that come with that playstyle, but in a 1v1 fight, they have a decent chance of winning against one another.
Nope. Those two are mutually exclusive.
1) No, not same difference
2) No, they are not mutually exclusive.
I'm starting to doubt your claims of having experience as a game developer.
In a group environment, classes still have their different strengths and it's optimal for a group to utilize those strengths. It's a waste if you have classes performing a role they are not the best at. The tank is still going to be better at tanking damage then the mage. The mage might be able to keep itself away from 1 enemy but it gets a lot harder when there are more.
Nope. Because if each class can defeat all of the other classes 1v1, there is no need for the tank to tank for the mage in group combat. The mage won't need a warrior to tank. And the mages won't need healers to heal them more than than tanks need healers to heal them. Because the mages and tanks will be equally balanced.
Sure, the tanks will be using tank abilities and the mages will be using mage abilities - but it will be kinda like saying an Ice mage is using different abilities than a Fire mage.
Wrong again. If you design a game correctly, you understand the different methods of accomplishing the same task. Meat/defense/evasive tanks, AoE/ST/DoT DPS, Heals/HoT/Buff healers, CC/Debuff support.
The concept of rock/paper/scissors should be "I focus in DoT DPS which makes me better suited against healers/support since my damage hits repeatedly over time, reducing their ability to cast". A mage focused on burst damage is best suited for other DPS classes, a mage focused on DoT is best suited for healers and support and possibly tanks because they drop their DPS and then focus on defensive maneuvering while their spells do the work. A mage focused on AoE is best suited for dealing with stealth and mob combat, doing tons of damage but spreading it out over a wide area of people.
A tank focused on meat shield is best suited against mage DPS in general, but terrible against rogues who hit with weapons that proc, and possibly poisons. Defensive tanks are best against rogues, evasive tanks are probably fair against both but quick to die if they fail to dodge.
Rogues who specialize in poison do high sustained DPS, but probably lousy burst DPS.
Your arguments are specifically designed to be excuses, purposely limiting your thoughts to a narrow point of view to try and win an argument. There is no game developer in that head of yours. It should be a challenge to design a better balance structure, not an argument that it can't be done.
Yes, if you need heals, you need a healer and i don't think anyone that wants 1v1 balance think you should be able to be your own healer...unless you are a healer class, in which case you will probably want a tank.
Nope. There are other ways to heal besides relying on a healer.
But, it's not a matter of whether healers aren't "needed" or wanted in battle, it's about the strategies revolving around who needs how much healing compared to others, in addition to positioning to keep specific classes safe and directing crowd control. If the classes are balanced for 1v1 against every other class, then all of that stuff also becomes equalized across the classes.
Balancing for 1v1 means that mages cannot be glass cannons.
Again, no. I actually think you believe that a mage in this scenario is exactly as tanky as a tank, which isn't what McStackerson is trying to suggest. Like at all.
Why can't you have the tanky tank and the glass cannon mage serve different roles in a group but still be competitive against one another? The tank can take a lot of damage but not deal much and the mage can deal alot of damage but not take a lot. You can have the mage deal twice the damage of the tank and the tank be able to take twice the damage of the mage and you would have an even fight while still giving them each a strength. This a really simple way of looking at it but it at least prove a concept.
Because to balance for 1v1, the mage cannot be glass cannon. The reason that mages are designed as glass cannons is specifically so that tanks can protect them in group combat.
A mage is not going to be able to kite a tank because Tanks have Lasso to real ranged folk in. So, balancing for 1v1 would mean that mages have to be able to survive melee combat longer and that Lasso is just as effective at grappling distant mages as a mage's kiting or ranged nuking abilities.
Again, balancing for 1v1 is mutually exclusive from balancing for group combat roles.
The point of making mages "glass canons" is that developers are typically as narrow minded as you, and too lazy to think of better balance mechanics. Sure mages wear cloth and do "little physical activity", but they use magic and it's kind of dumb to expect them to study pure offensive power and pay zero attention to defense. That isn't how the world works, and it's not how games should work either. It's clearly not how mages work in AoC judging by the videos we've seen so far.
Tanks will always be purpose built for absorbing blows. They don't need to avoid damage in order to deal damage, mages do. Mage gets hit, their spell fails, they struggle to cast again, they get hit, the spell fails, etc. Mages ALWAYS have some interruption mechanic that stops them from casting in combat. There will always be a need for tanks to protect mages, even if mages are as healthy and defense capable as tanks. This is a pretty basic concept that you probably should have realized on your own.
The mage dilemma shouldn't be "oh shit! Melee! Well I lose". It should be "Crap, I need space, ok root! dodge back! BLAST THE FUDGE OUT OF HIM!".
Everything you've described is a wonderfully boring game, I'll give you that. Unfortunately it's your own fault for poor imagination and improper consideration for McStackerson's perspective.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Mages: Mage Armor + Vampiric Touch = Defense & Offense.
You can build a mage to do anything in pen & paper games and most single player games, which is awesome. However, that intuitively has to be limited more in games of this nature for design purposes and attempts to appear balanced. Setting certain classes into mostly pre-determined roles allows for the development of content specifically designed to challenge the types of characters in those roles.
I might be wrong, but sometimes character roles have to be pre-determined within a set of bounds to allow content to feel more natural around it. On the other hand, being able to build a Mage/Tank that is overall effective as all other classes would be awesome.
+1 Skull & Crown metal coin
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Everything you've described is a wonderfully boring game, I'll give you that. Unfortunately it's your own fault for poor imagination and improper consideration for McStackerson's perspective.
Everything you've described is a wonderfully boring game, I'll give you that. Unfortunately it's your own fault for poor imagination and improper consideration for McStackerson's perspective.
I guess, then, Ashes will be boring for you.
How does that follow? You described a 1v1 balance structure where all classes were "basically different flavors of the same thing".
Maybe learn to how discussion works instead of setting up strawmen and weak excuses.
Mages: Mage Armor + Vampiric Touch = Defense & Offense.
You can build a mage to do anything in pen & paper games and most single player games, which is awesome. However, that intuitively has to be limited more in games of this nature for design purposes and attempts to appear balanced. Setting certain classes into mostly pre-determined roles allows for the development of content specifically designed to challenge the types of characters in those roles.
I might be wrong, but sometimes character roles have to be pre-determined within a set of bounds to allow content to feel more natural around it. On the other hand, being able to build a Mage/Tank that is overall effective as all other classes would be awesome.
I disagree that it has to be limited in an online game, particularly an MMO. There are countless ways to make a mage or spell casting class both powerful, defensive, and still give them inherent weaknesses that are fairly easy to exploit. Adding age old online game elements like spell fizzles, resistances, interruptions (not purposely triggered interruptions that require specific abilities, just interruptions from being hit by... anything), resources, and so fourth.
With a wide advancement system (such as AoC is reportedly going to have), your mage and tank are likely going to have very similar health, but have very different focuses on defense and offense. A mage will likely utilize spell effects that allow them to dodge while throwing up a barrier to prevent melee fighters from chasing after them, as well as spells like snare and root, all with the express purpose of keeping a melee opponent AWAY from them. Tanks will likely rely on heavier defenses like armor and magical resistance, as well as abilities that prevent enemies from fleeing, or breaking barriers quickly so they can chase them down.
Meaning you could potentially balance the two classes in a 1v1 scenario by focusing the mage's combat entirely around evading melee combat and landing 2 or 3 spells to finish the tank, having to fight through their resistances, interruptions from their attacks (or having to stop casting to dodge), chances to fizzle the spell itself, so on. On the flip side, the tank plays Pepe Le Pew and breaks through barriers, uses trip maneuvers, shield bashes, and does everything they can to keep the mage from evading them, and maybe just has to land one finishing blow (unless the mage has mage armor or magical defenses). This kind of PvP combat would make it more like wrestling than the standard bouts of attrition most MMO games employ now, where each player is constantly battling to maneuver to a more favorable position in order to obliterate the other with a single death blow. It would be incredibly gritty combat though, and make ambushes out in the wild far more appealing. However, the exact details of how these engagements stack up are open to adjustment. Tweaking the effectiveness of spells and how easy it is to cast/land them vs how much health each combatant has and how much damage they do, so on and so fourth.
2 medieval knights in full plate armor didn't bash the f* out of each other until one suit broke. They maneuvered in to grapple, tripped each other, and eventually pinned one or the other to the ground and jammed a dagger through the eye slit on the helmet. If your opponent wears full plate, there's not much chance in hell you're getting through that with a sword.
Rogues are a fun thing to balance as well! So let's look at them. If a rogue can successfully sneak up on and ambush an enemy from stealth, they should probably get the kill right there. The normal balance structure for them is that they can cut about 50% of the enemy's health from a single strike, and then run through a barrage of attacks to finish them off. I never liked this, and think it needs to be closer to just 1 shotting the target. To balance that out, put in a perception mechanic that gives players a chance to detect the rogue, and have that mechanic provide an audible and visual que when the rogue is detected. This means that a rogue has to move quickly, make fast decisions, and strike before their target detects them. If the target detects them, and breaks their stealth or foils their attack, the rogue should rightly be screwed. In other words, rogues have a pretty solid chance of winning as long as they successfully ambush their target, their "combat game" becomes maneuvering close and striking fast, while their target's game would be reacting to the ques as quickly as possible.
1
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
"Meaning you could potentially balance the two classes in a 1v1 scenario by focusing the mage's combat entirely around evading melee combat and landing 2 or 3 spells to finish the tank, having to fight through their resistances, interruptions from their attacks (or having to stop casting to dodge), chances to fizzle the spell itself, so on."
So, then how would the Mage be then balanced versus the Ranger? Would the Ranger have the same ability types as the Mage to be balanced around the Tank as well?
" A mage will likely utilize spell effects that allow them to dodge while throwing up a barrier to prevent melee fighters from chasing after them, as well as spells like snare and root, all with the express purpose of keeping a melee opponent AWAY from them. "
Different flavors of the same thing?
Also, if Mages come with mechanics that require them to risk spell fizzle (random ability failure), make them prone to interruption of abilities when they take damage, and require resources to use their abilities, the other classes better as well.
Making one classes weakness a random chance at ability failure and resources required for abilities (god help the player that uses a rarer resource on a spell that just doesn't work) seems like an intentional jab to that class. Especially if none of the other classes do it because they don't cast spells.
If you are going to balance the Mage versus the Tank in a 1v1, you also have to consider the Mage versus the Ranger and the Ranger versus the Tank without making the Ranger and Mage the same class but with different paints.
4ed D&D did this incredibly well, in that all the classes were equally balanced. So regardless of what you played it felt like the same thing all the other players were playing as well. There was no feeling of uniqueness to any of the builds. That would be by fear in any game that attempts this.
"Meaning you could potentially balance the two classes in a 1v1 scenario by focusing the mage's combat entirely around evading melee combat and landing 2 or 3 spells to finish the tank, having to fight through their resistances, interruptions from their attacks (or having to stop casting to dodge), chances to fizzle the spell itself, so on."
So, then how would the Mage be then balanced versus the Ranger? Would the Ranger have the same ability types as the Mage to be balanced around the Tank as well?
" A mage will likely utilize spell effects that allow them to dodge while throwing up a barrier to prevent melee fighters from chasing after them, as well as spells like snare and root, all with the express purpose of keeping a melee opponent AWAY from them. "
Different flavors of the same thing?
Also, if Mages come with mechanics that require them to risk spell fizzle (random ability failure), make them prone to interruption of abilities when they take damage, and require resources to use their abilities, the other classes better as well.
Making one classes weakness a random chance at ability failure and resources required for abilities (god help the player that uses a rarer resource on a spell that just doesn't work) seems like an intentional jab to that class. Especially if none of the other classes do it because they don't cast spells.
If you are going to balance the Mage versus the Tank in a 1v1, you also have to consider the Mage versus the Ranger and the Ranger versus the Tank without making the Ranger and Mage the same class but with different paints.
4ed D&D did this incredibly well, in that all the classes were equally balanced. So regardless of what you played it felt like the same thing all the other players were playing as well. There was no feeling of uniqueness to any of the builds. That would be by fear in any game that attempts this.
To clarify, my use of the word "resources" was intended to mean things like mana, stamina, or spell slots. Not spell components (though I did enjoy some spells requiring that in EQ, and it absolutely is a balancing concept).
1) I'm not sure what kind of role Rangers would play. Traditionally they are a form of ranged DPS, however I think if IS wants to hold to the trinity, and balance their classes properly, Rangers would have to function more like Summoners and be "jacks of all trades", which makes a lot more sense when you think of "rangers".
How these two might fight would be, again, mage using a barrier to keep an obstacle between them self and the ranger, while the ranger attempts to circle around said obstacle to get a shot, since the barrier serves as a physical obstruction, projectiles would ideally not go through it. Since the ranger can handle melee better than a mage, the ranger may prefer to use ranged combat to interrupt the mage's spell casting/keep them on their toes while closing the distance.
In ranger vs tank, ranger can actually handle melee combat (in theory), and so they'd likely use ranged combat on the tank until the tank closes, then switch to melee. Tanks that use shields would have the shield handy for blocking projectiles while closing on the ranger, so the ranger would have to decide whether they wanted to evade the tank and kite (possibly with traps or snares like foot shots), or engage the tank in melee. The contest wouldn't be as desperate for a ranger against a tank as the mage against the tank, but the mage still has a much fairer chance than scissors vs rock.
2) Dygz's whole argument is that a cyclic balance structure is necessary to prevent all classes from being "different flavors". When you compare a ranged DPS class like a mage to a melee tank class like the tank, the two function very differently. One focuses on closing the distance, the other focuses on keeping that distance, which makes two very different play styles in a 1v1 scenario. Really, the only thing you'd need to do is not have two classes focused on the same method of doing their role.
For DPS, you have rogue and mage. One's melee/burst, the other's ranged/versatile.
For Tank, you have tank and fighter. One's defensive/meatshield, the other's evasive/aggressive
For Support, you have bard and cleric. One's combat support (supports allies by inspirational attacks), the other's ranged support (casts spells).
For Versatility, you have ranger and summoner. One's ranged, the other's melee (at least, I imagine summoners will mostly use spells to support and buff their pets/allies and not damage opponents directly).
The drawback to cyclic balance structures is often that it gets really boring really fast to be scissors, and always lose to rock. Balancing the classes to be hard counters to one another rather than soft counters (such as mage having a harder time to fight tank than the ranger would) or viewing "rock, paper, scissors" as your class's specific battle tactics vs your opponent's. It's also incredibly easy for certain classes (rogue) to avoid their hard counters and pick and choose their targets at will, forcing developers to put in hard counters on their stealth ability which limits duration, which IMO is really dumb. There's no real world explanation for why a rogue can't sneak 24/7 without factoring in shadows/cover/etc. which is more ass pain than just letting them stay sneaky. It also limits their usefulness as scouts.
I'm not a fan of hard balance structures in general.
3) Your comparison to 4eD&D isn't super accurate either. I'd say a working example of asymmetrical balance (what I'm pushing for here) is Blade and Soul. The Force Master dealt with melee combatants by staying the hell away from them. In group scenarios, the FM could "handle" adds the way traditional ranged DPS might, but it was a hell of a lot more effective for an off tank to take those adds and leave the FM to focus fire on the main target. Keeping pressure off your ranged DPS is always more ideal than leaving them to their own devices while you nickle and dime the primary target. However, B&S was not a wide advancement system, it was very tall, and relied on making FMs considerably weaker (HP wise) than melee combatants. You could achieve the same thing in AoC with armors, and that's primarily what I'd see "fizzles" applying to mostly. Wearing heavier armor than what you normally could would contribute to penalties such as spell fizzles.
And 4eD&D just sucked ASS. I didn't even play the game, I just read through the rules and promptly vomited. The class balance of that game wasn't so much "balance" as it was "copy paste every ability, rename it, boom new class".
Keep in mind, all the balance mechanics I've used as examples are just examples. Spell fizzles are essentially the same as "critical fumbles" that physical combatants might have to endure. It depends on how challenging you want combat to feel, and how rewarding you want successes to be. Fizzling 2 spells while the tank is plowing through your barrier and running at you full steam adds to the tension of the fight, and landing that final spell that kills them skyrockets the mental rewards you get by combining it with relief. Meanwhile, failure isn't as personally painful because you have an easy excuse, tank resisted or you fizzled the spell. There's far less gas lighting and doubt leveled at you for having somehow screwed up.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It seems like a grand idea, to have every class balanced versus each other in a 1v1. I just don't think it is possible without everyone falling into the same build for every class or every class being mirrors of each other. Based on what you said about Blade and Soul, 4ed is a good example. It's just one that proves the point on the other side of the fence.
You also point out that Blade and Soul isn't a wide advancement system, which is somewhat to my point. In that roles sometimes have to be pre-determined and bound within certain expectations. Having to balance 1v1 while allowing your players the freedom to customize their classes in the variety of ways IS is aiming for seems a high expectation in itself.
Personally, I would prefer almost too many customization options in an RPG (MMO or P&P) with a cyclic balance versus a more limited advancement system buy "equality" among all builds.
I think what you want can be accomplished in an MMO, as it has been as you say in Blade and Soul and was (bad or not) in 4e. I don't know if Ashes can be that MMO.
It seems like a grand idea, to have every class balanced versus each other in a 1v1. I just don't think it is possible without everyone falling into the same build for every class or every class being mirrors of each other. Based on what you said about Blade and Soul, 4ed is a good example. It's just one that proves the point on the other side of the fence.
You also point out that Blade and Soul isn't a wide advancement system, which is somewhat to my point. In that roles sometimes have to be pre-determined and bound within certain expectations. Having to balance 1v1 while allowing your players the freedom to customize their classes in the variety of ways IS is aiming for seems a high expectation in itself.
Personally, I would prefer almost too many customization options in an RPG (MMO or P&P) with a cyclic balance versus a more limited advancement system buy "equality" among all builds.
I think what you want can be accomplished in an MMO, as it has been as you say in Blade and Soul and was (bad or not) in 4e. I don't know if Ashes can be that MMO.
It's actually easier to balance asymmetrically in a wide system like AoC. AoC has 64 classes to look at and balance, the easiest way to do this is to balance the 8 main archetypes, and make the augmentations modular. The Secret War was a wide advancement system with a hotbar limited to 6 active abilities and 6 passive abilities, and the potential to learn all 3 weapon types (guns, melee, magic) and all 9 weapons (pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, swords, hammers, claws, elemental, chaos, blood).
Each weapon type had a healing weapon. Assault rifles, claws, and blood magic were heavily focused on healing. ARs were leech healers, claws focused on regeneration and standard healing, and blood was heavier healing and barriers. Characters could wield 2 weapons at a time, and needed those weapons equipped in order to use the abilities in their hotbar (If I had pistols and shotguns equipped, I couldn't use blood magic abilities). All passives affected you regardless of weapons equipped. Each weapon had 2 major styles associated with it as well, and my maths isn't working great now but that adds up to a LOT of potential combinations of abilities/passives. It was not a cyclic balance structure, but it was trinity based.
Cyclic balance structures require a LOT more micromanagement and precision tuning. You need to figure out which classes kill which best, whether you want that to stay like that, and how effective they should be. You also have to figure out class specific abilities that target other classes, and in a system with limited hotbar space (AoC is confirmed to be such a system), how do you justify this anti-rogue ability on the hotbar? As in, Ranger has the ability to reveal stealthed Rogues in a ground targeted area (referencing a WoW Hunter ability here). I only have 6 spots on my hotbar, how do I justify wasting one of these incredibly valuable spots for an ability that is ONLY useful to find stealthed Rogues? And especially if I have to know roughly where the Rogue is before effectively using it.
Cyclic structures generally mean every class has at least 2 classes that are heavily geared towards killing it and 2 classes it can kill really well. It could also mean DPS kills Support but Tanks kill DPS while Support CCs Tanks. Regardless, it's just easier to make each class as a stand alone class with strengths and weaknesses, and tweak the abilities to line up with one another. And anyway, it's just ridicules to assume, under any circumstances, that a cyclic balance system is absolutely required to "make each class unique". These two aspects of game play are completely unrelated.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I agree it's easier to balance asymmetrically in any system. You just re-flavor and re-text all the abilities so everyone has the same access to everything. Also reduces the need for specializations, everyone can heal, everyone can do ranged attacks well, everyone can tank well, everyone can melee well. Because if you're not as good as the next class at any of those things, it's not asymmetrically balanced.
I like the way Ashes is planning on being balanced and would prefer them to not change that design goal.
I agree it's easier to balance asymmetrically in any system. You just re-flavor and re-text all the abilities so everyone has the same access to everything. Also reduces the need for specializations, everyone can heal, everyone can do ranged attacks well, everyone can tank well, everyone can melee well. Because if you're not as good as the next class at any of those things, it's not asymmetrically balanced.
I like the way Ashes is planning on being balanced and would prefer them to not change that design goal.
Not to be rude, but you have a severe misunderstanding of what asymmetrical balance is.
What you described is quite literally the antithesis of asymmetrical balance.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Everything you've described is a wonderfully boring game, I'll give you that. Unfortunately it's your own fault for poor imagination and improper consideration for McStackerson's perspective.
I guess, then, Ashes will be boring for you.
How does that follow? You described a 1v1 balance structure where all classes were "basically different flavors of the same thing".
Maybe learn to how discussion works instead of setting up strawmen and weak excuses.
I'll take your strawman and raise you brick wall.
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I agree it's easier to balance asymmetrically in any system. You just re-flavor and re-text all the abilities so everyone has the same access to everything. Also reduces the need for specializations, everyone can heal, everyone can do ranged attacks well, everyone can tank well, everyone can melee well. Because if you're not as good as the next class at any of those things, it's not asymmetrically balanced.
I like the way Ashes is planning on being balanced and would prefer them to not change that design goal.
Not to be rude, but you have a severe misunderstanding of what asymmetrical balance is.
What you described is quite literally the antithesis of asymmetrical balance.
Ha! I was thinking symmetric the whole time. Let me chalk this one up to age without defining my age.
Comments
Sometimes you just bum me out man
I do understand that, and increasing mob AI will decrease the total number of players that enjoy that content.
I would still totally be okay with them pulling it off though.
haha sorry for being the party-pooper on all the suggestions here :P
Nope. Those two are mutually exclusive.
Nope. Because if each class can defeat all of the other classes 1v1, there is no need for the tank to tank for the mage in group combat. The mage won't need a warrior to tank. And the mages won't need healers to heal them more than than tanks need healers to heal them. Because the mages and tanks will be equally balanced.
Sure, the tanks will be using tank abilities and the mages will be using mage abilities - but it will be kinda like saying an Ice mage is using different abilities than a Fire mage.
Nope. There are other ways to heal besides relying on a healer.
But, it's not a matter of whether healers aren't "needed" or wanted in battle, it's about the strategies revolving around who needs how much healing compared to others, in addition to positioning to keep specific classes safe and directing crowd control. If the classes are balanced for 1v1 against every other class, then all of that stuff also becomes equalized across the classes.
Balancing for 1v1 means that mages cannot be glass cannons.
Because to balance for 1v1, the mage cannot be glass cannon. The reason that mages are designed as glass cannons is specifically so that tanks can protect them in group combat.
A mage is not going to be able to kite a tank because Tanks have Lasso to real ranged folk in. So, balancing for 1v1 would mean that mages have to be able to survive melee combat longer and that Lasso is just as effective at grappling distant mages as a mage's kiting or ranged nuking abilities.
Again, balancing for 1v1 is mutually exclusive from balancing for group combat roles.
Ok, you brought up the pax demo balance which i think we can talk about. We both can agree that the tank and the mage had different strengths and weaknesses in the pax demo. The tank had more health as well abilities defensive and CC abilities. The mage on the other hand had less health, damage abilities, as well as some utility abilties that included mobility and defensive cooldowns. I think we both can agree that on the pve side of the game, the mage should not tank.
I don't remember exactly how the matchup played out but it was some balance to it. I don't remember one class completely dominating the other.
On the tanks side, the tank had tools like the grapple to pull the mage and the absorb shield to mitigate the mages damage. If mages had an advantage in the matchup and tanks felt like it was really hard to win against a mage, these abilities could be buffed to give a tank a better chance. Allowing the warrior to pull more often or absorb more damage would naturally increase it's chance of winning.
On the mages side, the mage had several abilities to deal with the tank. They had their freeze, blink, as well as mirror image that helped decrease the damage they took. If the tank had the advantage in the matchup and mages felt it was really hard to win against them then these abilities could be adjusted to make it easier for the mage to survive.
These are of course not the only ways you could help out one of the classes, just thought they were some easy examples. On the other side, these abilities can also be nerfed to help with balance. If mages are way to tricky for tanks to catch up to, maybe you need to increase the cooldown of their blink. Decreasing the lasso cooldown so a tank can pull more doesn't make it so the tank doesn't have to heal in a boss fight and just because the mage use mirror image a little more often doesn't mean the mage isn't going to be 2 shot by a boss the moment it drops off.
If the classes are balanced for 1v1 duels, there won't be much of a need to "tank". People can just use the abilities they have to dps. And clerics would probably be able to focus on dps rather than healing the party as well.
You don't remember one class completely dominating the other because it wasn't 1v1 PvP combat, it was 4v4 PvP combat. And the combat was objective-based rather than simply direct PvP combat.
I don't know why you keep trying to bring up heals as meaningful to this conversation. I especially don't know why you would comment on the need for tanks to be healed. In a discussion about combat roles, tanks, mages and healing, it's the mages that need to be worried about healing... way more than the tanks.
Neither Lasso nor Blink need to be nerfed.
The purpose of Lasso is to keep mobs locked on the tanks and away from the mages. And the purpose of Blink is also to help mages avoid damage from the mobs while they nuke the mobs that are focused on the tank(s).
The pax map was big enough that you have a 1v1. In an objective based game, you can still have a 1v1 even if it doesn't contribute to the victory.
I bring up heals as an example of a group role that players usually need in a pve environment. If the tank is doing their job, they should be needing the most heals as they should be tanking the damage. Tanks aren't supposed to be 100% immune to damage. Just supposed to be designed to keep mob attention and mitigate damage while doing so.
Yes, lasso and blink are useful in pve, i think that is beside the point.
If someone is attacking you, the best solution is always to get a friend.
Balancing the game on the concept of 1v1 when that entire concept can be thrown out the window simply by making use of the fact that the game is multiplayer just seems short sighted to me.
Then tell me the point.
We are talking about how 1v1 pvp balance affects roles and how you claim that you can't have 1v1 balance without making all classes the same. You claim that if you can't balance for the 1v1 without removing all classes strengths and weaknesses. Only relevance i see from that statement is if you are trying to bring up those abilities balance in a pve setting which i say is beside the point as you can also balance mobs/encounters around how you have balanced these classes for 1v1s. Making it so a mage can survive the damage one tank can do after pulling them doesn't mean they have the same survivability as a tank in pve encounters.
If this is directed at my comments then i'd like to say my argument is about wither classes can be balanced for 1v1 while still having different strengths and weakness.
I don't think classes should have separate balance in 1v1 arenas and also unsure how possible it is here. With the variety of build and gear options, it would be a nightmare to attempt unless stripped out some customization options.
Sorry if i'm blind but where have you clarified how bringing up those abilities usefulness in PVE supports your argument that you can't have classes with strengths and weaknesses in a environment where they are balanced for the 1v1.
1) No, not same difference
2) No, they are not mutually exclusive.
I'm starting to doubt your claims of having experience as a game developer.
Wrong again. If you design a game correctly, you understand the different methods of accomplishing the same task. Meat/defense/evasive tanks, AoE/ST/DoT DPS, Heals/HoT/Buff healers, CC/Debuff support.
The concept of rock/paper/scissors should be "I focus in DoT DPS which makes me better suited against healers/support since my damage hits repeatedly over time, reducing their ability to cast". A mage focused on burst damage is best suited for other DPS classes, a mage focused on DoT is best suited for healers and support and possibly tanks because they drop their DPS and then focus on defensive maneuvering while their spells do the work. A mage focused on AoE is best suited for dealing with stealth and mob combat, doing tons of damage but spreading it out over a wide area of people.
A tank focused on meat shield is best suited against mage DPS in general, but terrible against rogues who hit with weapons that proc, and possibly poisons. Defensive tanks are best against rogues, evasive tanks are probably fair against both but quick to die if they fail to dodge.
Rogues who specialize in poison do high sustained DPS, but probably lousy burst DPS.
Your arguments are specifically designed to be excuses, purposely limiting your thoughts to a narrow point of view to try and win an argument. There is no game developer in that head of yours. It should be a challenge to design a better balance structure, not an argument that it can't be done.
Again, no. I actually think you believe that a mage in this scenario is exactly as tanky as a tank, which isn't what McStackerson is trying to suggest. Like at all.
The point of making mages "glass canons" is that developers are typically as narrow minded as you, and too lazy to think of better balance mechanics. Sure mages wear cloth and do "little physical activity", but they use magic and it's kind of dumb to expect them to study pure offensive power and pay zero attention to defense. That isn't how the world works, and it's not how games should work either. It's clearly not how mages work in AoC judging by the videos we've seen so far.
Tanks will always be purpose built for absorbing blows. They don't need to avoid damage in order to deal damage, mages do. Mage gets hit, their spell fails, they struggle to cast again, they get hit, the spell fails, etc. Mages ALWAYS have some interruption mechanic that stops them from casting in combat. There will always be a need for tanks to protect mages, even if mages are as healthy and defense capable as tanks. This is a pretty basic concept that you probably should have realized on your own.
The mage dilemma shouldn't be "oh shit! Melee! Well I lose". It should be "Crap, I need space, ok root! dodge back! BLAST THE FUDGE OUT OF HIM!".
Everything you've described is a wonderfully boring game, I'll give you that. Unfortunately it's your own fault for poor imagination and improper consideration for McStackerson's perspective.
You can build a mage to do anything in pen & paper games and most single player games, which is awesome. However, that intuitively has to be limited more in games of this nature for design purposes and attempts to appear balanced. Setting certain classes into mostly pre-determined roles allows for the development of content specifically designed to challenge the types of characters in those roles.
I might be wrong, but sometimes character roles have to be pre-determined within a set of bounds to allow content to feel more natural around it. On the other hand, being able to build a Mage/Tank that is overall effective as all other classes would be awesome.
How does that follow? You described a 1v1 balance structure where all classes were "basically different flavors of the same thing".
Maybe learn to how discussion works instead of setting up strawmen and weak excuses.
I disagree that it has to be limited in an online game, particularly an MMO. There are countless ways to make a mage or spell casting class both powerful, defensive, and still give them inherent weaknesses that are fairly easy to exploit. Adding age old online game elements like spell fizzles, resistances, interruptions (not purposely triggered interruptions that require specific abilities, just interruptions from being hit by... anything), resources, and so fourth.
With a wide advancement system (such as AoC is reportedly going to have), your mage and tank are likely going to have very similar health, but have very different focuses on defense and offense. A mage will likely utilize spell effects that allow them to dodge while throwing up a barrier to prevent melee fighters from chasing after them, as well as spells like snare and root, all with the express purpose of keeping a melee opponent AWAY from them. Tanks will likely rely on heavier defenses like armor and magical resistance, as well as abilities that prevent enemies from fleeing, or breaking barriers quickly so they can chase them down.
Meaning you could potentially balance the two classes in a 1v1 scenario by focusing the mage's combat entirely around evading melee combat and landing 2 or 3 spells to finish the tank, having to fight through their resistances, interruptions from their attacks (or having to stop casting to dodge), chances to fizzle the spell itself, so on. On the flip side, the tank plays Pepe Le Pew and breaks through barriers, uses trip maneuvers, shield bashes, and does everything they can to keep the mage from evading them, and maybe just has to land one finishing blow (unless the mage has mage armor or magical defenses). This kind of PvP combat would make it more like wrestling than the standard bouts of attrition most MMO games employ now, where each player is constantly battling to maneuver to a more favorable position in order to obliterate the other with a single death blow. It would be incredibly gritty combat though, and make ambushes out in the wild far more appealing. However, the exact details of how these engagements stack up are open to adjustment. Tweaking the effectiveness of spells and how easy it is to cast/land them vs how much health each combatant has and how much damage they do, so on and so fourth.
2 medieval knights in full plate armor didn't bash the f* out of each other until one suit broke. They maneuvered in to grapple, tripped each other, and eventually pinned one or the other to the ground and jammed a dagger through the eye slit on the helmet. If your opponent wears full plate, there's not much chance in hell you're getting through that with a sword.
Rogues are a fun thing to balance as well! So let's look at them. If a rogue can successfully sneak up on and ambush an enemy from stealth, they should probably get the kill right there. The normal balance structure for them is that they can cut about 50% of the enemy's health from a single strike, and then run through a barrage of attacks to finish them off. I never liked this, and think it needs to be closer to just 1 shotting the target. To balance that out, put in a perception mechanic that gives players a chance to detect the rogue, and have that mechanic provide an audible and visual que when the rogue is detected. This means that a rogue has to move quickly, make fast decisions, and strike before their target detects them. If the target detects them, and breaks their stealth or foils their attack, the rogue should rightly be screwed. In other words, rogues have a pretty solid chance of winning as long as they successfully ambush their target, their "combat game" becomes maneuvering close and striking fast, while their target's game would be reacting to the ques as quickly as possible.
So, then how would the Mage be then balanced versus the Ranger? Would the Ranger have the same ability types as the Mage to be balanced around the Tank as well?
" A mage will likely utilize spell effects that allow them to dodge while throwing up a barrier to prevent melee fighters from chasing after them, as well as spells like snare and root, all with the express purpose of keeping a melee opponent AWAY from them. "
Different flavors of the same thing?
Also, if Mages come with mechanics that require them to risk spell fizzle (random ability failure), make them prone to interruption of abilities when they take damage, and require resources to use their abilities, the other classes better as well.
Making one classes weakness a random chance at ability failure and resources required for abilities (god help the player that uses a rarer resource on a spell that just doesn't work) seems like an intentional jab to that class. Especially if none of the other classes do it because they don't cast spells.
If you are going to balance the Mage versus the Tank in a 1v1, you also have to consider the Mage versus the Ranger and the Ranger versus the Tank without making the Ranger and Mage the same class but with different paints.
4ed D&D did this incredibly well, in that all the classes were equally balanced. So regardless of what you played it felt like the same thing all the other players were playing as well. There was no feeling of uniqueness to any of the builds. That would be by fear in any game that attempts this.
To clarify, my use of the word "resources" was intended to mean things like mana, stamina, or spell slots. Not spell components (though I did enjoy some spells requiring that in EQ, and it absolutely is a balancing concept).
1) I'm not sure what kind of role Rangers would play. Traditionally they are a form of ranged DPS, however I think if IS wants to hold to the trinity, and balance their classes properly, Rangers would have to function more like Summoners and be "jacks of all trades", which makes a lot more sense when you think of "rangers".
How these two might fight would be, again, mage using a barrier to keep an obstacle between them self and the ranger, while the ranger attempts to circle around said obstacle to get a shot, since the barrier serves as a physical obstruction, projectiles would ideally not go through it. Since the ranger can handle melee better than a mage, the ranger may prefer to use ranged combat to interrupt the mage's spell casting/keep them on their toes while closing the distance.
In ranger vs tank, ranger can actually handle melee combat (in theory), and so they'd likely use ranged combat on the tank until the tank closes, then switch to melee. Tanks that use shields would have the shield handy for blocking projectiles while closing on the ranger, so the ranger would have to decide whether they wanted to evade the tank and kite (possibly with traps or snares like foot shots), or engage the tank in melee. The contest wouldn't be as desperate for a ranger against a tank as the mage against the tank, but the mage still has a much fairer chance than scissors vs rock.
2) Dygz's whole argument is that a cyclic balance structure is necessary to prevent all classes from being "different flavors". When you compare a ranged DPS class like a mage to a melee tank class like the tank, the two function very differently. One focuses on closing the distance, the other focuses on keeping that distance, which makes two very different play styles in a 1v1 scenario. Really, the only thing you'd need to do is not have two classes focused on the same method of doing their role.
For DPS, you have rogue and mage. One's melee/burst, the other's ranged/versatile.
For Tank, you have tank and fighter. One's defensive/meatshield, the other's evasive/aggressive
For Support, you have bard and cleric. One's combat support (supports allies by inspirational attacks), the other's ranged support (casts spells).
For Versatility, you have ranger and summoner. One's ranged, the other's melee (at least, I imagine summoners will mostly use spells to support and buff their pets/allies and not damage opponents directly).
The drawback to cyclic balance structures is often that it gets really boring really fast to be scissors, and always lose to rock. Balancing the classes to be hard counters to one another rather than soft counters (such as mage having a harder time to fight tank than the ranger would) or viewing "rock, paper, scissors" as your class's specific battle tactics vs your opponent's. It's also incredibly easy for certain classes (rogue) to avoid their hard counters and pick and choose their targets at will, forcing developers to put in hard counters on their stealth ability which limits duration, which IMO is really dumb. There's no real world explanation for why a rogue can't sneak 24/7 without factoring in shadows/cover/etc. which is more ass pain than just letting them stay sneaky. It also limits their usefulness as scouts.
I'm not a fan of hard balance structures in general.
3) Your comparison to 4eD&D isn't super accurate either. I'd say a working example of asymmetrical balance (what I'm pushing for here) is Blade and Soul. The Force Master dealt with melee combatants by staying the hell away from them. In group scenarios, the FM could "handle" adds the way traditional ranged DPS might, but it was a hell of a lot more effective for an off tank to take those adds and leave the FM to focus fire on the main target. Keeping pressure off your ranged DPS is always more ideal than leaving them to their own devices while you nickle and dime the primary target. However, B&S was not a wide advancement system, it was very tall, and relied on making FMs considerably weaker (HP wise) than melee combatants. You could achieve the same thing in AoC with armors, and that's primarily what I'd see "fizzles" applying to mostly. Wearing heavier armor than what you normally could would contribute to penalties such as spell fizzles.
And 4eD&D just sucked ASS. I didn't even play the game, I just read through the rules and promptly vomited. The class balance of that game wasn't so much "balance" as it was "copy paste every ability, rename it, boom new class".
Keep in mind, all the balance mechanics I've used as examples are just examples. Spell fizzles are essentially the same as "critical fumbles" that physical combatants might have to endure. It depends on how challenging you want combat to feel, and how rewarding you want successes to be. Fizzling 2 spells while the tank is plowing through your barrier and running at you full steam adds to the tension of the fight, and landing that final spell that kills them skyrockets the mental rewards you get by combining it with relief. Meanwhile, failure isn't as personally painful because you have an easy excuse, tank resisted or you fizzled the spell. There's far less gas lighting and doubt leveled at you for having somehow screwed up.
You also point out that Blade and Soul isn't a wide advancement system, which is somewhat to my point. In that roles sometimes have to be pre-determined and bound within certain expectations. Having to balance 1v1 while allowing your players the freedom to customize their classes in the variety of ways IS is aiming for seems a high expectation in itself.
Personally, I would prefer almost too many customization options in an RPG (MMO or P&P) with a cyclic balance versus a more limited advancement system buy "equality" among all builds.
I think what you want can be accomplished in an MMO, as it has been as you say in Blade and Soul and was (bad or not) in 4e. I don't know if Ashes can be that MMO.
It's actually easier to balance asymmetrically in a wide system like AoC. AoC has 64 classes to look at and balance, the easiest way to do this is to balance the 8 main archetypes, and make the augmentations modular. The Secret War was a wide advancement system with a hotbar limited to 6 active abilities and 6 passive abilities, and the potential to learn all 3 weapon types (guns, melee, magic) and all 9 weapons (pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, swords, hammers, claws, elemental, chaos, blood).
Each weapon type had a healing weapon. Assault rifles, claws, and blood magic were heavily focused on healing. ARs were leech healers, claws focused on regeneration and standard healing, and blood was heavier healing and barriers. Characters could wield 2 weapons at a time, and needed those weapons equipped in order to use the abilities in their hotbar (If I had pistols and shotguns equipped, I couldn't use blood magic abilities). All passives affected you regardless of weapons equipped. Each weapon had 2 major styles associated with it as well, and my maths isn't working great now but that adds up to a LOT of potential combinations of abilities/passives. It was not a cyclic balance structure, but it was trinity based.
Cyclic balance structures require a LOT more micromanagement and precision tuning. You need to figure out which classes kill which best, whether you want that to stay like that, and how effective they should be. You also have to figure out class specific abilities that target other classes, and in a system with limited hotbar space (AoC is confirmed to be such a system), how do you justify this anti-rogue ability on the hotbar? As in, Ranger has the ability to reveal stealthed Rogues in a ground targeted area (referencing a WoW Hunter ability here). I only have 6 spots on my hotbar, how do I justify wasting one of these incredibly valuable spots for an ability that is ONLY useful to find stealthed Rogues? And especially if I have to know roughly where the Rogue is before effectively using it.
Cyclic structures generally mean every class has at least 2 classes that are heavily geared towards killing it and 2 classes it can kill really well. It could also mean DPS kills Support but Tanks kill DPS while Support CCs Tanks. Regardless, it's just easier to make each class as a stand alone class with strengths and weaknesses, and tweak the abilities to line up with one another. And anyway, it's just ridicules to assume, under any circumstances, that a cyclic balance system is absolutely required to "make each class unique". These two aspects of game play are completely unrelated.
I like the way Ashes is planning on being balanced and would prefer them to not change that design goal.
Not to be rude, but you have a severe misunderstanding of what asymmetrical balance is.
What you described is quite literally the antithesis of asymmetrical balance.
Ha! I was thinking symmetric the whole time. Let me chalk this one up to age without defining my age.
@Caeryl please ignore if not already done : sad: