PvP balancing done right - by blizzard

Sometimes a class is really strong and balanced in PvP.
In PvP, they have amazing burst, utility and surviability in the context of player combat.

But their damage can simultaneously be horrible in PvE. And their utility can be lackluster in a PvE context. So bad infact, thats it's a straight downgrade from other similar classes and roles.

You now have a class thats severely underpowered and unplayed in PvE, while really balanced, popular and good in PvP.

If you do an overall buff to the class, you destroy PvP balance. If you do nothing, you don't solve the PvE imbalance.

How would you solve it's PvE issues without without destroying the delicate balance between PvP and PvE?

--->
A simple line of code and a sentence is enough:

Blizzard latest patch notes for arms warrior:
Mortal Strike damage increased by 10%. This change does not apply to PvP.
Overpower damage increased by 10%. This change does not apply to PvP.
Execute and Condemn damage increased by 15%. This change does not apply to PvP.

Developers’ note: These changes are intended to increase Arms single target performance while not affecting areas where they already excel.

The best of both worlds
PvE and PvP balancing, without affecting each other in any way. Keeping everyone happy, since it has 0 negative effects for anyone. As a nice cherry on the top, it makes the life of a developer about 100% easier while balancing classes.

Why are most Ashes of creation fans against this approach to balancing?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

unknown

This content has been removed.

Dygz

WoW has the worst PvP balancing, ever!!
Ashes PvP is focused on objective-based PvP, rather than 1v1 combat.

Ludullu

While I agree with what Hailee said, this kind of "balancing" was present in L2's updates over a decade ago. Except it was a choice. You're enchanting your class skills? You can add pvp dmg, base dmg or some other horizontal enchant (usually elemental). So I don't see why Intrepid couldn't have one of the options for skill point attribution be "this skill hits stronger in pvp". And now instead of changing a whole damn class, you give players the option for what they want to excel at in the game.

Here's a crusty video showing the process (it's from a private server so you go to the max enchant from just one book, so disregard that part)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpc54HnXvm0

Shoelid

WoW has separated PvP and PvE so much that a player can choose to "be a PvPer" or "only do raiding". Because of this, WoW devs can balance the two separately. In AOC, PvP and PvE are inextricably linked, so they cannot balance the two separately. A 15% damage difference between a mob and a player will be noticed much more in AOC than in WoW and would cause a sense of disconnect.

Furthermore, what happens when a class needs something other than damage? What if they need more mobility or CC? What if they're too squishy?

While WoW can balance for these things with PvP talents and Trinket stamina boosts, AOC can't do that.

George_Black

PvP balance can be achieved by devs playing their own classes and weapons. That's all it takes.
Also, there is no reason why every class should be good for a pvp group and good for a pve group. And it's fair.

NishUK

George_Black wrote: »

Also, there is no reason why every class should be good for a pvp group and good for a pve group. And it's fair.

hmm?

George_Black

NishUK wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

Also, there is no reason why every class should be good for a pvp group and good for a pve group. And it's fair.

hmm?

Let's take fighter for example.
I can see other classes outDPSing the fighter.
But the fighter might have a good mix of dmg, resiliance, CC and mobility that makes it a better class for PvP situations.

The fighter shouldnt be "balanced" to be viable in both PvP and PvE. I can see the same with the rogue.

If I was a GL and the aim of the day was to kill an RB knowing that a rival group would come to pry it from is, I'd build the RB killing group with archers and nuker mages for ez reliable constant dps. I wouldnt put the fighter or the rogue in that group. I would have them nearby, part of a group whose purpose is to meet the enemy and krep them away from our raiding.

I guess in my first post I should have used the word "both" somewhere in there

Noaani

Marzzo wrote: »

Why are most Ashes of creation fans against this approach to balancing?

The reason many games have to do this is because they use different stats for players and mobs.

The need for them to do things like this is simply a result if them not building the underlying game correctly.

Ashes is attempting to build the underlying game correctly. This means that if a class is under or overpowered in PvE, it will be similarly under or overpowered in PvP.

It isnt a case of us not wanting them to do things like this, it is a case of us wanting (expecting) Intrepid to do a better job than Blizzard at building the game.

NishUK

@George_Black @Noaani

Interesting takes, so under that logic why do Healers and necessary buffs/debuffs from something like a Bard have both huge priority in PvE and PvP?

I mean I could go on about that flaw in designing some classes to have a niche expertise only but I'll hold off for now.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

Interesting takes, so under that logic why do Healers and necessary buffs from something like a Bard have both huge priority in PvE and PvP?

Because in both PvP and PvE, running out of HP means you die. Due to this, a way to restore some of those HP is desirable in both.

Also, in both PvP and PvE, when your target runs out of HP, they die. Due to this, buffs that assist you in removing their HP faster are desirable in both.

NishUK

@Noaani my question was underlying.

Why are they allowed to have a huge priority in both, over say, people who have a preference for liking the look or gameplay of another class but have to sometimes sit out in favor of another class?

You could argue that these are typical "war" formations, if you're up against a guild filled with experts that are slow bruiser's type class you will want to counter them with mainly ranged dps and you'll leave your melee's mainly out and ofc a supportive element always has it's place. Similarly in PvE if there is an encounter that has horrible debuffs in the melee range you will organise for more of a ranged benefit + the typical supports.

But wouldn't you agree that this a lazy design practice? Why are, say, dps classes a wide and varied bunch while healers/buffers/whatever else are always of the same cloth and can mold into anything. This is fantasy, the strongest healer type could be something not of the typical church/holy setting in the melee range that "rewinds big wounds (burst)" using close bodily inspection and thereby has the potential to take melee punishment and there we have niche expertise created in the support area.

Can you explain to me a big purpose of why it is fun to create holes in a game, ie "you can't do this....but you're needed for this! cheer up

" , all this boils down to in my eyes, is forcing meta's and structures that essentially avoid critical thinking for the sake of cheap and reliable entertainment via easy structuring/management.

What I'm suggesting, is either you create niche everywhere or you don't do it at all and in doing so everyone is happy with the circumstance.

Steven I'm sure knows full well, that dagger's (rogues) in L2 were useless in every group PvE setting, that's mainly why I can see from his talks that he's excited to bring them into the fold in PvE by being a neccesary component for opening and allowing exploration + trap uncovering that a typical party setting wouldn't normally do or fall victim to.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

Noaani my question was underlying.

Why are they allowed to have a huge priority in both, over say, people who have a preference for liking the look or gameplay of another class but have to sometimes sit out in favor of another class?

You could argue that these are typical "war" formations, if you're up against a guild filled with experts that are slow bruiser's type class you will want to counter them with mainly ranged dps and you'll leave your melee's mainly out and ofc a supportive element always has it's place. Similarly in PvE if there is an encounter that has horrible debuffs in the melee range you will organise for more of a ranged benefit + the typical supports.

But wouldn't you agree that this a lazy design practice? Why are, say, dps classes a wide and varied bunch while healers/buffers/whatever else are always of the same cloth and can mold into anything. This is fantasy, the strongest healer type could be something not of the typical church/holy setting in the melee range that "rewinds big wounds (burst)" using close bodily inspection and thereby has the potential to take melee punishment and there we have niche expertise created in the support area.

Can you explain to me a big purpose of why it is fun to create holes in a game, ie "you can't do this....but you're needed for this! cheer up " , all this boils down to in my eyes, is forcing meta's and structures that essentially avoid critical thinking for the sake of cheap and reliable entertainment via easy structuring/management.

What I'm suggesting, is either you create niche everywhere or you don't do it at all and in doing so everyone is happy with the circumstance.

Steven I'm sure knows full well, that dagger's (rogues) in L2 were useless in every group PvE setting, that's mainly why I can see from his talks that he's excited to bring them into the fold in PvE by being a neccesary component for opening and allowing exploration + trap uncovering that a typical party setting wouldn't normally do or fall victim to.

I'm going to attempt to clarify this question before answer it.

Does the following sum up what it is you are asking?

Why is it that DPS classes have times where they are more or less desired, but healers and support are always desired?

Is that about right?

NishUK

Yes.

Are you for the trinity system being expanded or remaining stale, bearing in mind with what I said previously.

For example, League of Legends has a trinity system but sometimes doesn't rely on healing and shielding (which are essentially the same but one is temporary or exceeds max capacity) and instead relies on other supportive elements like cleansing, engagement, disengagment and control.

"You don't need a heal if your enemy is unable to hurt you or caught with his pants down" - (insert noteable person).

JamesSunderland

If the skills of a class requires direct "exclusionary damage increase or decrease" in either PvP or PvE to be originally balanced, that's a straight up skill design flaw for me.

On the other hand, giving the players tools to mess around with those modifiers on their discretion is fine and is already expected at least for the PvP side of things in Ashes.

Noaani

Noaani wrote: »

Why is it that DPS classes have times where they are more or less desired, but healers and support are always desired?

Is that about right?

NishUK wrote: »

Yes.

OK, cool.

So, to that, all I can say is, stop playing shit games.

In EQ2, there are 6 healers, broken up in to three types. Clerics, Shaman and Druids.

All healers have direct heals, as well as group heals. However, each type of healer also has a heal type that is unique to itself.

Clerics have reactive heals. These are cast as a buff on the target, and they proc a heal when that character takes damage.

Shaman have wards, these essentially act as an increase to the targets hit point pool, with all damage coming off any ward on the character before coming off their actual hit points.

Druids have heal over time heals.

Each healer has a single target and a group version of their specific heals above.

What this means is that if you are running with a plate tank, you want a Cleric, with their reactive heals. A mitigation based tank takes damage often, but they take less damage each hit. This means a reactive heal from a cleric is often enough to keep the tank up, with the occasional direct heal needed to top things up.

On the other hand, if you are running an avoidance tank, you really don't want a Cleric at all. Avoidance tanks take damage far less often, but when they take damage, they take a LOT of damage. This puts Shaman as being far better suited to avoidance tanks.

Druids are perfectly valid for either tank, but are a secondary choice for all.

So, in the same way that you may want one DPS class over another due to the content you are facing, you would want one healer over a different one based on the tank you are taking.

Now on to support.

EQ2 had 4 support classes, on top of it's 6 healers. Of those support classes, two were more focused on caster DPS, and two were more focused on melee DPS.

As such, if you are taking on content that sees you wanting to increase your ranged DPS and decrease your melee DPS, you would also want to decrease the support classes you have that buff melee, and increase those that buff caster damage (since the game only had one ranged damage class that wasn't a caster).

So, to your question of "Why is it that DPS classes have times where they are more or less desired, but healers and support are always desired?", all I can say is that if you don't play shit games, you will see that healers and support classes have exactly that same more or less desirability.

The thing with this is - basically any healer will do for any content, and basically any DPS will do for any content.

I never rearrange my guilds raids based on the content we are taking on. I keep my guild at roughly 10% more than the size of a raid in the game I am playing (in a game with 20 person raids, I run with 22 or so players, in a game with 40, I run with about 45). I also don't ever expect anyone to raid on an alt. As such, the raid we take in to basically all content is basically the same every time.

The only exception I have EVER made to this is when content requires a specific number of tanks.

As to your comments here

NishUK wrote: »

For example, League of Legends has a trinity system but sometimes doesn't rely on healing and shielding (which are essentially the same but one is temporary or exceeds max capacity) and instead relies on other supportive elements like cleansing, engagement, disengagment and control.

Same with top end raid content.

Removing a status effect on a player (or on every player) is often the most important thing for a healer to do, even if that means not healing a player that is about to die due to something else.

Top end raiding also often relies on control (CC), to the point where good games have entire classes dedicated to this.

NishUK

Can someone make EQ3, please...

@Noaani You make it so hard because you don't see others perspective, at all, you are just clearly happy with the way things are.

You're goal is to basically choke anyone into saying "ye ye, you're right, regardless of xxx personal preferences and other game experiences of combat we have to set all that aside and enjoy what is set in stone from certain games because my experience is the perfect one".

If you can't say that EQ has any flaws, whether that is from a system perspective, gameplay, animation, visual clarity, graphic, whatever, then how do you expect anyone to warm to your side of thinking.

You speak of gameplay, systems and user enjoyment like it's an equation already complete.

George_Black

@NishUK you'll never see a Chad playing a bard or a healer. These are classes for people that need to be liked. See? Balance. Yes healer and bards will always be "op" in groups both in pve and pvp, but they wont be the classes that get the spotlight or the volume of kill counts. They might not even get gear from the guild. "Just press the heal button. We need to craft weapons for the dps".

That "logic" about balance should have been obvious without me having to explain every scenario.
Not every class has to be good at everything. And healers and bards most definately wont be fun/good for many, many things.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

Can someone make EQ3, please...

Noaani You make it so hard because you don't see others perspective, at all, you are just clearly happy with the way things are.

You're goal is to basically choke anyone into saying "ye ye, you're right, regardless of xxx personal preferences and other game experiences of combat we have to set all that aside and enjoy what is set in stone from certain games because my experience is the perfect one".

If you can't say that EQ has any flaws, whether that is from a system perspective, gameplay, animation, visual clarity, graphic, whatever, then how do you expect anyone to warm to your side of thinking.

You speak of gameplay, systems and user enjoyment like it's an equation already complete.

I think you missed the point.

You said "why don't tab target games do this thing?"

I said "some of them do, here is an example from one such game".

The reason I asked for clarification as to what it was you were asking is because I knew you would complain in some way.

Honestly, what more do you want as an answer to your question than a direct example of a game that does the thing you were decrying a class of games for not doing?

Don't blame me for your lack of knowledge on tab target games.

Also, I never once said EQ/EQ2 has no flaws. Put simply, you asked a question about one of the things those two games do very well, so I obviously used them as examples. If you want to ensure I won't use an EQ game as an example to illustrate the thing you think tab target games don't do, perhaps stick to asking questions about crafting... it's the one area neither EQ games was overly great at.

NishUK

George_Black wrote: »

@NishUK you'll never see a Chad playing a bard or a healer. These are classes for people that need to be liked. See? Balance. Yes healer and bards will always be "op" in groups both in pve and pvp, but they wont be the classes that get the spotlight or the volume of kill counts. They might not even get gear from the guild. "Just press the heal button. We need to craft weapons for the dps".

Well this merits discussion....

Why won't they get gear from a guild? is the game heavily in favor of dps classes? isn't that an issue that should be addressed?

Obviously everyone knows your average alpha male or a weed like asmon desperate to be one wants to crush their enemies via brute strength or "cool" assassination.
What is the answer to this? "lets just continue making cringey clerics that always wear white robes and shine the light on their allies". Is this alone an appropriate design and gameplay choice toward that issue??

I could reference all types of supportive elements from other games, genre's, shows, manga's that would be far more appropriate for the general male mentality.

It's rather closed minded or a quick standard of thinking choice as well to keep the famed and loved Paladin as strictly a tank, sometimes it's an alternative form of DPS in some cases. At the end of the day it's just a closed minded perspective, if you like things the way they are fine, we'll continue to offer a charity slot to that "poor guy" who has to be a slave, so you say.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

@NishUK you'll never see a Chad playing a bard or a healer. These are classes for people that need to be liked. See? Balance. Yes healer and bards will always be "op" in groups both in pve and pvp, but they wont be the classes that get the spotlight or the volume of kill counts. They might not even get gear from the guild. "Just press the heal button. We need to craft weapons for the dps".

Well this merits discussion....

Why won't they get gear from a guild? is the game heavily in favor of dps classes? isn't that an issue that should be addressed?

It depends on the guild.

Some guilds will consider all gear earned during guild activities to belong to the guild and hand out to members as the guild sees fit.

Since most games do not see buffs scale based on the casters gear (most buffs in most games gain more from the target of the buff having better gear), support classes are often the last to get gear.

This isn't how I personally deal with gear, but it absolutely is how some guilds handle things.

As an aside, none of the healers in EQ2 were robe wearers. two wear plate, two wear chain and two wear leather. So, the idea of "lets just continue making cringey clerics that always wear white robes and shine the light on their allies" is not an inherent thing, it is just how some games do things.

Child Item