Class balance

Is it just me or do other people believe it will be hard having 64 different class and keeping them game balanced. I believe that was one of the problem with ArcheAge allowing people to combine three different classes. I do like the idea of creating unique class combinations, but I feel it will be overwhelming when it comes to balancing.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

CaptnChuck

No game has achieved perfect balance before and I doubt AoC will be the first one to do it. As long as all the classes are at least somewhat viable, i'm ok with it.

Yuyukoyay

I have more confidence in them than blizzard. People want the classes to be unique, fun, and viable. They will forgive a few mistakes as long as the really bad ones are fixed somewhat swiftly.

Right now WoW has the same class copied 12 times. I'd rather avoid that.

darthaden

Their goal isnt to have class balance at all, they're goal is to make sure each class archetype has a role in a group. Bards will never top the dps charts but their bluffs will make the whole party perform better. The Rogue may not provide as much dps as a fighter but their ability to find hidden rooms and traps will make a group want a fighter and a rogue over two fighters. This is more of the class system they're going for (no idea if a fighter will actually be better at dps then a rogue, only using that as a example)

Yuyukoyay

That is part of the overall term balance. What peoples desires for it is mostly the same. Some just aren't really good at explaining it. The way they doing it sounds like you are going to feel the times you don't have a bard in your party over a summoner. Just like that summoner will have uses the bard will not have.

Sounds simple but it is more complicated than it sounds.

Jexz

From my underatanding is they are balancing around 8 man pve they can't fail in that regards. I think the intension is for the subclass to add flair not cross archetype boundaries. So there is not an issue balancing them externaly rather than just make them all usefull to that archetype . These can also be micro adjusted once we see metas developed with out disrupting the 8 man composition. There will no doubt be a dominant 1v1 class this is unavoidable in a mmo. But what place will they have in this game where the devs have group play in mind? You're only shooting yourself in the foot for picking it for that reason as the most popular class will have the hardest time finding a group.
There will also probably be a dominant gatherer class . My guess is bard as they usually they have run speed buffs and will probably be among the lowest 1v1 dps. So gatherers won't have to worry about being ganked by meta 1v1 class.

Just a guess

Beeper

This is the kind of problem Archeage suffers from. In Archeage, you can select 3 archetypes instead of 2, which means you have up to 220 potential classes. You gain access to each of the skill sets and spend points to select which abilities you want to use of the three archetypes. This boils it down to a very simplistic level, but I think the difference is (and AoC's Saving grace) that the secondary archetype modifies the primary. Meaning that balance suddenly becomes much easier, because each of the 64 classes is based firmly on one of the original 8.

So instead of picking and choosing from different jars, and praying that the abilities you select mesh together, you're simply applying a predefined layer on top of the class.

BaSkA_9x2

Indeed 64 classes will be a challenge to balance, however I think it won't be too difficult if they're able to balance the 8 main archetypes really well, then the secondary class will be only variations and an improvement, each with their own focus.

Juk KO

its not 64 classes.

its 8 classes with 8 class skins.

the augments dont change that much to the base skill from what we have seen. and the more you change 1 ability with augments the less you can augment others.

they also said when you choose a subclass, each subclass has 4 schools of variants to choose from.

So in my opinion this game is going to be a lot easier to balance then first thought. Meta skills will begin to surface and everyone from each class will probably spec hard into specific abilities. Such as blink and charges with more augments.

Think of diablo 3 for example. How 1 ability has the 5 morphs that change the ability. AoC will be similar to that but itll be 4 choices that are based on youre subclass.

SquirrelTeamSix

It depends on what you mean by balance I think. If you mean every DPS being equal, that's going to be tough. Though i don't think the devs should be too concerned with that as much as each build being viable in some form. A Ranger/Bard should do as much damage as a Ranger/Ranger, but the Bard sub should allow it to provide some util that maybe the cleric can't cover with it's build.

For the sake of an example (though a rough one because GW2 doesn't use the trinity) in GW2 Revenant is very desired in their elite spec because they provide alacrity, but it's a rough shot that the Rev will out DPS a Dragonhunter or Soulbeast, but neither of those give alacrity, and the rev can do some dmg. Alacrity is only provided by 2 elite spec, so even though the primary healer (Druid) is the main support, another group member provides some support that the primary healer/support can't, so it's viable

ZiZi-Jaz-Mina

Balancing single class vs another single class is virtually impossible in a game like this because the game is centered around group play. meaning, a healer will probably NEED a dps class in his party to make good progress (esp in dungeons) and a dps will need heals, and both will need a tank to hold agro and well, tank. outside those three roles in a group, you have flexibility with the rest of the group makup (for pve anyway).

Luthienstorm

Ashes of creation have said they are not balancing around abilities but the desire to have each archtype in the party. Many players think balance is having classes being equal, but saying that I want a mage to do all the things a fighter can do homogenizes the classes, this means there is no reason to play a mage vs a fighter besides the aesthetic. Ashes of creation said they will take a paper/rock/scissors approach to pvp balance. This means some classes will definitely have an innate advantage over others. Here's an example: Rogues > Mages > fighters > Rogues. Dungeons and Dragons is a great game but the classes are never equal, but each character has it's place. Characters don't need to be equal s much as they need to be fleshed out. Perhaps there is a quest that requires you heal someone who is injured. You can get the materials to make a salve or find a cleric. A dungeon has a quest where the objective is in a random place. Someone who can stealth prevents needless battles. Traps can be ran through by a summoners pet or disabled by a rogue. A mage can cast a 30 second fly spell allowing the party to reach the second level of the dungeon. ( can only be used once every 5 minutes on a single player ). A bard entrances humanoids and the party skips a battle or makes a humanoid his ally by charming him. It's much more important that each class feels unique and has utility skills that make them "special". Balance can take a back seat and come later...each archetype not being equal is why people choose one archetype over another. If things are equal...then...there's no choice to be made besides the aesthetic.

Yuyukoyay

The game is also said to be passive heavy, so there will be a lot of passives per class that enhance them. While also having unique abilities only 1 of each archetype will have. This won't have WoW's homogenizing problem. This game will probably be the least like WoW in this regard.

PlagueMonk

Juk KO wrote: »

its not 64 classes.

its 8 classes with 8 class skins.

the augments dont change that much to the base skill from what we have seen. and the more you change 1 ability with augments the less you can augment others.

they also said when you choose a subclass, each subclass has 4 schools of variants to choose from.

So in my opinion this game is going to be a lot easier to balance then first thought. Meta skills will begin to surface and everyone from each class will probably spec hard into specific abilities. Such as blink and charges with more augments.

Think of diablo 3 for example. How 1 ability has the 5 morphs that change the ability. AoC will be similar to that but itll be 4 choices that are based on youre subclass.

This is the best answer imho.

I do think however it will be more like 8 + (so the secondaries will need to be adjusted to a certain extent) but nowhere NEAR trying to balance 64 totally unique classes. Holy cow that would be a pain in the ass. I know that DAoC had 48 unique classes and there was NEVER balance, more an acceptable tolerance most of the time. :P

Luthienstorm

The other issue with balance has nothing to do with balance at all, but time. One person doesn't figure out the "best" way to play a class. It takes years of play to truly maximize what characters are capable of with a mix of gear, talents, execution, and archetypes. Meanwhile people who don't change how they play say there's imbalance. People entering this game need to understand there will be a steep learning curve and that how the player "wants" their class to play and win might not be the best way to earn victory.

NelsonRebel

Probably to early for this topic since we havent seen the classes testing yet

Jexz

Luthienstorm wrote: »

The other issue with balance has nothing to do with balance at all, but time. One person doesn't figure out the "best" way to play a class. It takes years of play to truly maximize what characters are capable of with a mix of gear, talents, execution, and archetypes. Meanwhile people who don't change how they play say there's imbalance. People entering this game need to understand there will be a steep learning curve and that how the player "wants" their class to play and win might not be the best way to earn victory.

Reminds me of a great Indy game I played called Savage 2
was like a mix of RTS and 3rd person combat team vs team

Classes had ranged abilities but was designed to be inferior. They wanted melee to be dominant. I pissed a lot of vets off because I could make the ranged work and was really good at dodging/kiting. Sometimes you can beat the devs balance and meta by playing what works for you.

Kreed

Personally I am tired of games and post in other game forums constantly insisting their characters or others get balanced ( which usually means Nerfed.) So many other games people complain someones over powered and it results in the game declining because the small percentage of players who cry for the nerf bat so their own character can be stronger. Ends up driving away the rest of the other players.

The reality is, there are characters that will be stronger, this expectation that a bard or a healer can beat a rogue or a fighter mentality or rogue should beat all hands down. Each Character should play their role they are designed for, each one can become powerful if the right choices are made in the build of the character for the role they are going to play. Comes down to learn to play your character, I have seen more people with lesser characters beat higher lvl over powered characters because they know how to spec and play their class, they know their rotations. Some classes will put out more damage regardless, the only balancing should be around ratios of the group as a whole , output of healing, receiving, damage output, damage received. Can the fight be won without buffs or is it totally impossible no matter how hard you try with full buffs.

CaptnChuck

@Kreed

Not true. Some level of balance has to exist. No balance is what drives most of the players away as it forces them to play one class over the other, not nerfs.

Child Item