Ghoosty wrote: » You totally misunderstand me. First of all, I am totally OK with group vs group balance, I do not promote 1v1 balance. I am just against the illogical thing that if there are 1v1 balance we do not have classes and do not have strength/weakness and especially the skill difference is just color of the skills.
Ghoosty wrote: » In the 3 mages situation there are no other classes. This is just a very basic example that the paper, rock, skissor balance does not mean we have real different classes. In this example there are everything what was Caeryl brought up against the 1v1 balance. (no real classes, only color difference in skills, strong weakness against other class) And evidently everything what was brought up is included, but it is P,R,S system.
Ghoosty wrote: » When I talked about nerfing/buffing skills I did not talk about against specific classes only. I talked about them as general nerf/buff. But as theses skills have major role against the mentioned classes, it means that the result is unbalanced 1v1, but we changed almost nothing. The original example was perfect 1v1 balance, but it was accused that there are no real classes, only skill color difference. So I said we make minor changes in some skills. After that, we have a more P,R,S like system. So I raised the question: Only these minor changes created real classes and created 'non-color difference' skill?
Ghoosty wrote: » "What is so special about Tanks that they should be more vulnerable to Ice spells?" I did not said anything about tanks. I did not even say vulnerability. The buff can be: less cooldown, more damage, more range, shorter cast time, longer effect period, stronger effect, trigger combo and maybe there are other things as well, what did not came to my mind at this moment.
Ghoosty wrote: » "What you are asking for, here, is not even for the balance to change for PvP v PvE." No I do not ask for anything, these examples are just presentations to reveal logical fails.
wolfwood82 wrote: » Wandering Mist wrote: » wolfwood82 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXX8URSUWm0 There's your rock paper scissors balance in a nutshell. In the end, it's a dumb balance strategy anyway. Give a class the ability to stealth, it immediately obtains a massive tactical advantage and strategic advantage. It can choose when and where to hit, from what direction, and even whether or not it hits to begin with. Classes should be made so that they counter each other effectively based on circumstance. A rogue has a huge advantage with stealth, however any class should be able to defeat the rogue if they react to detecting the rogue quickly enough. A mage should be well balanced between offense and defense, they should be hard to take out in a stand up fight, but vulnerable to an ambush (like from a rogue), and tanks should be resilient, able to withstand spell effects better than others, but susceptible to certain situations (DoTs for example). Basically, any class should be able to specialize in rock, paper, or scissors, while still capable of throwing the other two to some degree. Making one class rock, another scissors, and another paper, means that for your entire time playing a class, you are limited to a one trick horse. And that's just not fun for anyone. Stealth is always a very tough thing to balance in any game. We can use WoW as the example of this. Imagine if Rogues didn't have stealth at all. They have no gap closers and are squishy melee fighters, meaning without stealth any ranged opponent can kite them and kill them before the Rogue ever gets into melee range. So you give Rogues a stealth mechanic in order to allow them to reach their target without dying instantly. But now the Rogues are too strong in 1v1 because their only weakness has been taken away thanks to stealth. At this point you have 2 options. Either you put in a counter-measure for the stealth system (i.e. a way to detect stealthed players), or give Rogues another weakness to balance out the strength of the stealth mechanic. Oh and as for that video, I'm pretty sure WoW has never aimed for a cyclical balance in their class gameplay at all. If you want an example of cyclical balance you'd be better off looking at League of Legends, where every champion has a counter (either an item or another champion) to offset its strengths. I actually don't think the rogue needs to be balanced out to make up for it's advantage. The problem with WoW rogues was they had insane sustained DPS on top of insane burst DPS. Meaning they can kill you instantly AND within a short period of time, it made them highly competitive in sustained combat (the kind of combat you typically have to engage in for grinding and such), but also gave them the ability to end a target quickly.They were also surprisingly scrappy and difficult to kill themselves. And yeah I do believe WoW was meant to use a cyclic balance system. Hunters had a number of tricks geared specifically for hunting and exposing rogues. It just didn't work super well because you had to know approximately where the rogue was before exposing them, which is a typical flaw for anti-stealth mechanics in other games.
Wandering Mist wrote: » wolfwood82 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXX8URSUWm0 There's your rock paper scissors balance in a nutshell. In the end, it's a dumb balance strategy anyway. Give a class the ability to stealth, it immediately obtains a massive tactical advantage and strategic advantage. It can choose when and where to hit, from what direction, and even whether or not it hits to begin with. Classes should be made so that they counter each other effectively based on circumstance. A rogue has a huge advantage with stealth, however any class should be able to defeat the rogue if they react to detecting the rogue quickly enough. A mage should be well balanced between offense and defense, they should be hard to take out in a stand up fight, but vulnerable to an ambush (like from a rogue), and tanks should be resilient, able to withstand spell effects better than others, but susceptible to certain situations (DoTs for example). Basically, any class should be able to specialize in rock, paper, or scissors, while still capable of throwing the other two to some degree. Making one class rock, another scissors, and another paper, means that for your entire time playing a class, you are limited to a one trick horse. And that's just not fun for anyone. Stealth is always a very tough thing to balance in any game. We can use WoW as the example of this. Imagine if Rogues didn't have stealth at all. They have no gap closers and are squishy melee fighters, meaning without stealth any ranged opponent can kite them and kill them before the Rogue ever gets into melee range. So you give Rogues a stealth mechanic in order to allow them to reach their target without dying instantly. But now the Rogues are too strong in 1v1 because their only weakness has been taken away thanks to stealth. At this point you have 2 options. Either you put in a counter-measure for the stealth system (i.e. a way to detect stealthed players), or give Rogues another weakness to balance out the strength of the stealth mechanic. Oh and as for that video, I'm pretty sure WoW has never aimed for a cyclical balance in their class gameplay at all. If you want an example of cyclical balance you'd be better off looking at League of Legends, where every champion has a counter (either an item or another champion) to offset its strengths.
wolfwood82 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXX8URSUWm0 There's your rock paper scissors balance in a nutshell. In the end, it's a dumb balance strategy anyway. Give a class the ability to stealth, it immediately obtains a massive tactical advantage and strategic advantage. It can choose when and where to hit, from what direction, and even whether or not it hits to begin with. Classes should be made so that they counter each other effectively based on circumstance. A rogue has a huge advantage with stealth, however any class should be able to defeat the rogue if they react to detecting the rogue quickly enough. A mage should be well balanced between offense and defense, they should be hard to take out in a stand up fight, but vulnerable to an ambush (like from a rogue), and tanks should be resilient, able to withstand spell effects better than others, but susceptible to certain situations (DoTs for example). Basically, any class should be able to specialize in rock, paper, or scissors, while still capable of throwing the other two to some degree. Making one class rock, another scissors, and another paper, means that for your entire time playing a class, you are limited to a one trick horse. And that's just not fun for anyone.
mcstackerson wrote: » Please show me the RPG design doc that says classes have to have strengths and weaknesses. If that is how you define/like your RPGs then cool but it sounds like you are saying that if an RPG isn't designed the way you like then it's not really an RPG.
mcstackerson wrote: » The brunt of my argument is that I disagree with how core strengths and weaknesses are to RPGs but I also disagree that you can't have strengths and weaknesses in a system where you try to balance for the 1v1.
mcstackerson wrote: » You can still have the tanky kiteable warrior and the glass cannon bursty mage.
mcstackerson wrote: » You can give them different abilities that can help them deal with the other player classes and still have them being reliant on each other in a group, especially a group pve environment. Just because warriors have a spell reflect and charge ability that helps them fight mage players who try to kite them doesn't change the fact the warrior needs healers and dps when doing a group encounter. In PVE, these abilities don't suddenly make the warrior completely self-reliant and capable of soloing all content. They still need heals and other player dealing damage to their target.
Dygz wrote: » Ghoosty wrote: » When I talked about nerfing/buffing skills I did not talk about against specific classes only. I talked about them as general nerf/buff. But as theses skills have major role against the mentioned classes, it means that the result is unbalanced 1v1, but we changed almost nothing. The original example was perfect 1v1 balance, but it was accused that there are no real classes, only skill color difference. So I said we make minor changes in some skills. After that, we have a more P,R,S like system. So I raised the question: Only these minor changes created real classes and created 'non-color difference' skill? Lost in translation. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Dygz wrote: » Ghoosty wrote: » "What is so special about Tanks that they should be more vulnerable to Ice spells?" I did not said anything about tanks. I did not even say vulnerability. The buff can be: less cooldown, more damage, more range, shorter cast time, longer effect period, stronger effect, trigger combo and maybe there are other things as well, what did not came to my mind at this moment. Um. This your quote: "If we go back to 'my model'. It does not really have classes, it is only just different colored skill, but if we nerf the 'detect invisibility' skill of the mage to make it less effective against the rouge and we buff his freeze spell to make more powerful against the tank, then we created classes and solved the only color difference skill problem." You very clearly mention tanks. And you suggest that the Freeze spell should be more powerful against tanks. Which inherently means that tanks should be more vulnerable to Freeze/Ice spells. Hence, my question. I see no purpose for the rest of what you suggest above.
Dygz wrote: » 1v1 balance inherently means that the RPG strengths and weaknesses of the classes are essentially non-existent.
Dygz wrote: » The examples just point out the failures in your own logic.
Dygz wrote: » I worked at Activision for 10+ years.
Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Please show me the RPG design doc that says classes have to have strengths and weaknesses. If that is how you define/like your RPGs then cool but it sounds like you are saying that if an RPG isn't designed the way you like then it's not really an RPG. You can lead a horse to water... I've been playing RPGs for 40 years. I've studied game design in college and I worked at Activision for 10+ years. I'm sharing my knowledge with you, but you don't have to be convinced by what I say. If you want to study game design, you can find a way to do so. mcstackerson wrote: » The brunt of my argument is that I disagree with how core strengths and weaknesses are to RPGs but I also disagree that you can't have strengths and weaknesses in a system where you try to balance for the 1v1. OK. mcstackerson wrote: » You can still have the tanky kiteable warrior and the glass cannon bursty mage. Tanky warrior and glass cannon mage means that the warrior is gonna easily break the mage in melee combat. I dunno why a player tank would allow themselves to be kited in a 1v1 battle with a mage. 1v1 balance would mean that both are equally capable at melee and ranged. Because if the mage can easily kite the tank, the mage is probably going to win that battle. mcstackerson wrote: » You can give them different abilities that can help them deal with the other player classes and still have them being reliant on each other in a group, especially a group pve environment. Just because warriors have a spell reflect and charge ability that helps them fight mage players who try to kite them doesn't change the fact the warrior needs healers and dps when doing a group encounter. In PVE, these abilities don't suddenly make the warrior completely self-reliant and capable of soloing all content. They still need heals and other player dealing damage to their target. If one class can hold their own against any other class, there isn't much of a reason to rely on other combat roles during group combat. If the mage can hold their own against any class, that means they don't need tanks to melee the opponents and make sure they take the brunt of the damage. No one has suggested that balancing classes for 1v1 combat means that each class can solo all content. Needing heals doesn't necessarily equate with needing a healer. Needing other players to deal damage to a target says nothing about combat roles.
Azathoth wrote: » 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.
Wandering Mist wrote: » Azathoth wrote: » 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.
Azathoth wrote: » Wandering Mist wrote: » Azathoth wrote: » 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.
mcstackerson wrote: » 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.
mcstackerson wrote: » 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.
mcstackerson wrote: » 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.
mcstackerson wrote: » 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.
mcstackerson wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » 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. Same difference. mcstackerson wrote: » 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. mcstackerson wrote: » 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. mcstackerson wrote: » 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. mcstackerson wrote: » 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.
mcstackerson wrote: » Yes, lasso and blink are useful in pve, i think that is beside the point.
Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » 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.
noaani wrote: » 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.
