The Powergaming Problem

[Luridis]

Somehow I feel like you're confusing balance with trying to find and close largest number of exploits they can. And, there is a difference between those two things.

 

Skyrim gets released... while everyone else was busy power-leveling blacksmithing, alchemy and enchanting, I was wandering about deciding which town to actually go into first. While everyone was talking about how great 1H / Shield / DW & heavy armor was, I tried a 2H + light armor build I really liked. In fact, it worked quite well if you took the block perk for reflexes and capitalized on your speed to dodge power attacks. Both armors could be made weightless for encumbrance purposes (longevity of stamina), but heavy still lowered your movement speed more than light armor.

 

Not everyone plays min/max, or at least doesn't do it all the time. No one had to tell me to do something less than "optimal", I just did what I chose to do. Skyrim is a single player game, and so is Eternity. Best let people play the game they want to and you play it your way. I find it sort of odd that you're trying to impose your views of play style on other gamers. Before you come back making some lukewarm relation to retail value, Obsidian's reputation, or some other nonsense; remember, development for this game has already been backed by the people here. Maybe not all of it, but enough to ignore accepted design elements centered around seeking the approval of the retail channel in order to sell sequels.

 

Edit: I guess that was the tired, 4AM way of saying I don't think they have to worry about appeasing the masses in order to sell a sequel down the road.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Luridis

[Gromnir]

What would be the point of wasting resources to nerf the kensai/mage build to equal it to ranger? None.

 

 

am not sure how you isn't getting this. perhaps it is confusion 'cause of nomenclature and unnecessary importance put on labels. a class or build that is disproportional powerful IS a balance issue. you answer your own questions, and somehow get to wrong answers. is wacky. why didn't josh include his avatar o' death kit? why was harm changed? why has developers admitted that some weapons, powers, skills, abilities is too powerful? is not that such stuff necessarily broke game, particularly in a party based game. iwd developers nerferd missle weapons from bg standard. bg2 developers nerfed grand mastery. allowing fighters to keep bg1 grand mastery bonuses in bg2 wouldn't have hurt mages or anybody else, but they removed anyway. developers on bg2 boards specific referenced kensai/mages and the potential problem o' giving them bg1 standard grand mastery bonuses. is a potential powergame option that were removed. try to separate balance from powergame is nutty.

 

 

 

oh, and the ranger is a wonderful example to be using, 'cause the 3.0 ranger were front-loaded. were not too weak as to be unplayable or too strong as to be game-breaking, but it were clear fodder for powqergamers who would take 1 level of ranger. to circumvent powergamer impulses, monte cook came up with his ranger variant. josh sawyer tried to implement monte cook's ranger in iwd2... which created a very amusing incident that black isle were forced to claim never happened. 3.5 d&d eventual addressed the issue, but...

 

*shrug*

 

is yet another example o' both pvp and crpg developers wrestling with a way to deal with and overcome powergamer nonsense... in spite o' your claim that doing so is a waste o' resources.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps kensai/mages got eaten alive by ranger/cleric duals... just saying.

[Gromnir]

Oh jeez, your IQ really is on par with your English. I'm not talking about disproportional power! You were saing about hyperbole yet you still using it! Talk about hypocrisy!

I said it already that overpowering should be avoided like the ranger/cleric BUG (yes it was a bug because ranger don't get all druid spells). Balancing game is about not giving "I win button" which I already stated as this breaks the game and fun of playing.

There will always be better or worse builds. If there were not then there would be no difference between fighter with 18 strength and fighter with 16 strength, also what would be the point of developing ranger with a bow class if it would have the same damage, armor class etc as a warrior with a bow? It would be redundant. Why bother with classes and stats when everything you create will be the same in the end? Just drop the stat system altogether then.

The point of balancing is to eliminate the extremes like the useless classes and overpowered features that breaks the game.

 

ps kensai/mages got eaten alive by ranger/cleric duals... just saying.

 

Who gives a ****** about it?!

 

am suspecting that you have a ... problem. Gromnir says that developers does, and always has, worked to prevent the power builds that results in a clear win. you disagreed, saying that developers hasn't done so in past and that there wouldn't be a point in any event. we give examples wherein developers has done exactly the kinda curb o' powergame shinnanigans we describe. you largely ignore examples and pretend such measures never were or you attempt to redefine. for example, we note that the 3e ranger did not break the game, but any person with a powergame leaning would only take 1 level... and an extreme large % o' player were only taking 1 level. ranger weren't too weak or too strong or even bugged, but a disproportionate number o' folks had 1 stinking level o' ranger. etc. is developers looking for game break? sure, but that ain't all they is trying to prevent. a clear win build is not a build that wins game. a win build is a clear best build. there is similar reason they wanna rid selves of clear worst builds. regardless o' people liking the notion of bards, if they is the least powerful class, few people will play. balancing is not simply removing the, "I win button."

 

 

"There will always be better or worse builds."

 

so? is more strawman as nobody ever denied that point. lord knows that telling us that there should be a difference between 16 str and 18 str is pointless... but it is not relevant in the present context... though am glad you ignorantly bring up as it is just one reason why developers changed to point-buy. duh. oh, and adding lots o' exclamation points makes you seem desperate. ideally, any 1 power or skill or stat choice is gonna be equivalent to any other power or skill or stat choice... but that is an idealized notion and developers ain't gonna kill selves trying to make sure that a player always gets exactly as much juice from adding 1 point of str as they does by adding 1 point of charisma... or whatever. never has Gromnir argued such a point. that being said, developers continues to work to avoid the situation in which peoples feel stoopid for Not choosing a particular power, skill, stat choice or build. look at hiro's post above:

 

"I don't understand why people are comparing powergaming to cheating. Powergaming isn't cheating, it's just min-maxing and optimising your character. Doesn't everybody want the best out of their characters? I know I do. "

 

crpg is about making choices. you get to make make choices in dialogues. you also gets to make character building choices. hiro is a normal player with understandable motivations who want to optimize his character. if there is one clear optimal power, skill or build, he will take it. providing clear optimal choices makes the other choices largely meaningless for anybody who has a tendency to powergame... which is bad.

 

am suspecting this ain't ever gonna get through... but it not matter. "Who gives a ****** about it?!" well, clearly the developers do. that is why they fix such stuff. that is why they will continue to fix.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 25, 2012 by Gromnir

[Gatt9]

I don't think everyone is using the same definition for powergaming, so I'm not going to bother with those arguments for or against PG.

 

Regardless, I do have to say: No specific class should ever be weak in and of itself. If it's a "weak class" they sohuldn't even bother with the development time. Why bother with all these extra classes and different options if they're inherently weak? What's the point? Making sure that character classes and options are balanced always makes for a good game.

 

Nor should there be a weak skill. If it's weak, as the devs have already said, they're not going to implement it. The best games always have balance...

 

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game.

 

 

 

this is called strawman.

 

*shrug*

 

people, against their own advantage, want to win. if you, as a developer, provide a clear winning build, power or whatever, a disproportionate % of people will choose the win. such an eventuality is not good for numerous reasons discussed above.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

No offense, but it's not even remotely close to a strawman. In fact, calling it a strawman is closer to being a strawman.

 

It's math. Pick your variable. Damage? If any class deals 1 more point of DPS than the other classes, it's "A clear winning build" because it'll be superior to everyone else at all times. Experience? If any class or skill allows the player to gain more experience than the others, it's "A clear winning build".

 

You have two options.

 

1. Everyone is the same.

2. There's "A clear winning build".

 

Every system that does not make all choices identical will have "A clear winning build", because the math will work out differently for each choice. The only way you can get a system without "A clear winning build" is if all of the math results in the same value for every choice, which means you have everyone the same.

[Gromnir]

I don't think everyone is using the same definition for powergaming, so I'm not going to bother with those arguments for or against PG.

 

Regardless, I do have to say: No specific class should ever be weak in and of itself. If it's a "weak class" they sohuldn't even bother with the development time. Why bother with all these extra classes and different options if they're inherently weak? What's the point? Making sure that character classes and options are balanced always makes for a good game.

 

Nor should there be a weak skill. If it's weak, as the devs have already said, they're not going to implement it. The best games always have balance...

 

Actually, real balance is an undesirable state. Real balance means that everyone has an equal chance at everything, everyone does the same damage, etc. Real balance means everyone is equivalent. Which makes for an *incredibly* boring game.

 

 

 

this is called strawman.

 

*shrug*

 

people, against their own advantage, want to win. if you, as a developer, provide a clear winning build, power or whatever, a disproportionate % of people will choose the win. such an eventuality is not good for numerous reasons discussed above.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

No offense, but it's not even remotely close to a strawman. In fact, calling it a strawman is closer to being a strawman.

 

It's math. Pick your variable. Damage? If any class deals 1 more point of DPS than the other classes, it's "A clear winning build" because it'll be superior to everyone else at all times. Experience? If any class or skill allows the player to gain more experience than the others, it's "A clear winning build".

 

You have two options.

 

1. Everyone is the same.

2. There's "A clear winning build".

 

Every system that does not make all choices identical will have "A clear winning build", because the math will work out differently for each choice. The only way you can get a system without "A clear winning build" is if all of the math results in the same value for every choice, which means you have everyone the same.

 

it is strawman 'cause we never made the argument that he is trying to beat the stuffing out of. do you know what strawman is? regardless, am just repeating self if we again explain. save to nrefute the ridiculousness of you claiming that a 1pt increase in difference would be viewed as = "a clear winning build." such a notion is only possible if you has been complete ignorant of boards such as these, or is being willful obtuse. getting people to agree 'bout anything on these boards is extreme difficult. people will disagree 'bout your math or the circumstances in which math actually apply. and the more choices and classes you got, with more powers and skills, the closer it becomes to impossible to have some simple mathematic comparison that folks agree is valid. d&d 3.0, before splat book explosion, had lots o' choices, but a limited number o' classes and there were no single winning build people agreed 'pon... but there were probable 10 or so builds that were commonly mentioned as superior.

 

your 1 and 2 is... silly.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

Okay, thought I'd do this and give my thoughts on power gaming and Obsidian's apparent comments on it. First off, I'll give my most basic stance, that moving to eliminate power gaming is the wrong position to take. Expanding on that, I'm not opposing the goal but approach, as I think it tends to give you a bias towards X being wrong and Y being right. A better approach would be to try and make power gaming irrelevant.

 

Making power gaming irrelevant would be best done (in my humble opinion) by taking the weight off of combat as the driving force of the narrative and also by integrating it more fluidly.

 

Did you play the pre-cursor titles to this project? Ever thought of, y'know, reading a book?

[Sensuki]

In my interview Josh said they were aiming at something between 3.5E and 4E, so at least (yay) that doesn't mean that every class will basically be the same.

[terryrayc]

Why is this even a question? This is a Single Players Game!!! There are people who like to just get in the game a play, they like to find everything, they like to max their character out, they like to find the best gear out there, they want to complete the game in one sitting.

 

Let them, it will have ZERO effect on my game or your game or that guy over there's game. We need to focus on things that will effect my game and his game and your game.

[Hormalakh]

Why is this even a question? This is a Single Players Game!!! There are people who like to just get in the game a play, they like to find everything, they like to max their character out, they like to find the best gear out there, they want to complete the game in one sitting.

 

Let them, it will have ZERO effect on my game or your game or that guy over there's game. We need to focus on things that will effect my game and his game and your game.

 

No. Completing the game in one sitting means having to make quests linear and uninteresting. If quests don't have more than one solution, then powergaming comes into play. Think back to some of the older cRPGs. Many of them had several solutions and if I knew that I could solve everything in one sitting, then why would I come back and play the game again?

 

Enabling powergamers with this sort of poor quest creation actually does affect my game - it tells devs to not worry about balance and creative quest creation, creating a poorer quality game and not something that could be later considered "a classic cRPG game" worth playing (and replaying).

Edited October 26, 2012 by Hormalakh

[terryrayc]

Why is this even a question? This is a Single Players Game!!! There are people who like to just get in the game a play, they like to find everything, they like to max their character out, they like to find the best gear out there, they want to complete the game in one sitting.

 

Let them, it will have ZERO effect on my game or your game or that guy over there's game. We need to focus on things that will effect my game and his game and your game.

 

No. Completing the game in one sitting means having to make quests linear and uninteresting. If quests don't have more than one solution, then powergaming comes into play. Think back to some of the older cRPGs. Many of them had several solutions and if I knew that I could solve everything in one sitting, then why would I come back and play the game again?

 

Enabling powergamers with this sort of poor quest creation actually does affect my game - it tells devs to not worry about balance and creative quest creation, creating a poorer quality game and not something that could be later considered "a classic cRPG game" worth playing (and replaying).

 

You miss understood me. My point is simple. The Devs shouldn't waste time doing everything they can to stop powergaming. In general powergaming doesn't effect SPG's because well how 1 player plays does ZERO to you and how you play. I understand they shouldn't go out of their way to make it easy to powergame but at the same time they shouldn't waste time trying to stop all powergamers.

[Infiltrator_SF]

If there was no powergaming or min/maxing than you would be essentially removing a polarity from a game, the other one being absolute casual (i.e. one who picks stats/spells randomly on level ups). RPGs are the soul and body of powergaming - there is no other ganre who can emulate this concept quite obviously, and you want to make it "irrelevant"? If you don't want to play a game like that, no one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to do it.

[Tsuga C]

In my interview Josh said they were aiming at something between 3.5E and 4E, so at least (yay) that doesn't mean that every class will basically be the same.

 

Something between? *goes to look up interview* *prays for minimal 4E*

[Volourn]

Powergaming/balance should not be an issue in a SP game. I also don't believe a rogue should be the 'equal' to a mage. A mage can create stuff ouf of thin air, and a rogue.. steals stuff... Yeah, a know a rogue can do more than that but the point is clear. If someone wants to 'game' the 'system' in a SP game. Let them. Plus, that's what the hardcore options can deal with as well.

[soulmata]

 

It's math. Pick your variable. Damage? If any class deals 1 more point of DPS than the other classes, it's "A clear winning build" because it'll be superior to everyone else at all times. Experience? If any class or skill allows the player to gain more experience than the others, it's "A clear winning build".

 

You have two options.

 

1. Everyone is the same.

2. There's "A clear winning build".

 

Every system that does not make all choices identical will have "A clear winning build", because the math will work out differently for each choice. The only way you can get a system without "A clear winning build" is if all of the math results in the same value for every choice, which means you have everyone the same.

 

This argument is illogical because it is based on the premise that all skills in the game are applied equally to all environments. What about a character who has absurdly high DPS based on a high rate of attack with a low damage weapon, but is unable to overcome the damage threshold or damage resistance of his or her target? What about a character who relies solely on magic and can out-damage everyone else in many cases, but is rendered helpless when up against a creature or creatures who are resistant or immune to his attacks?

 

What about a character who is solely focused on combat and nothing else, then finds themselves at a crippling disadvantage because an entire quest-line is focused around diplomacy or subterfuge?

 

The 'dps' argument is contrite and pointless. It also reeks of someone who is accustomed to playing MMOs, where DPS optimisation actually matters.

 

In single player story-based RPGs, most players are in it for the experience, the story, the depth of lore, the immersion - not optimising DPS.

[Infiltrator_SF]

Powergaming/balance should not be an issue in a SP game. I also don't believe a rogue should be the 'equal' to a mage. A mage can create stuff ouf of thin air, and a rogue.. steals stuff... Yeah, a know a rogue can do more than that but the point is clear. If someone wants to 'game' the 'system' in a SP game. Let them. Plus, that's what the hardcore options can deal with as well.

 

Powergaming and balance are two very, very different things.. just because a mage uses magic shouldn't mean he'll be better in every aspect than at lockpicking/thievery than a rogue. I think Obsidian failed with the aspect of class balance in PT - as in, the Thief was a vastly inferior choice of class compared to the Mage/Warrior.

 

But for example, the Assassin Kit in BG2 was a great pure class, probably the one with the biggest insta-gib contender in the game.

 

But I am sure Obsidian realized their mistakes in balance when it comes to PT.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Infiltrator_SF

[soulmata]

I think Obsidian failed with the aspect of class balance in PT - as in, the Thief was a vastly inferior choice of class compared to the Mage/Warrior.

 

But for example, the Assassin Kit in BG2 was a great pure class, probably the one with the biggest insta-gib contender in the game.

 

But I am sure Obsidian realized their mistakes in balance when it comes to PT.

 

P:T I feel is a bad example - that game wasn't designed for balance, it was designed almost entirely to give you an interactive story. Combat and even class mechanics were non-important for the majority of the game. I get what you're saying, though - and you do have a good example with the assassin. Kit comparison is actually a great example in general - look at other kits, like the Beastmaster or the Jester. Some kits were ridiculously powerful, while others gave up good class mechanics for mechanics that didn't scale past the first game.

[Monte Carlo]

I just don't understand why there's even a debate about how to balance a game for everybody in a single-player experience.

 

The more I think about it, the odder it is. And what if, like me, you think power-gaming (pejorative term, it means enjoying optimal builds for the hell of it) isn't actually that bad? If you want story-tyme, read a book. If you want to play a game that evokes the IE games of yore, buy this and use the difficulty sliders and options to play the game you want.

 

It really is that simple.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Monte Carlo

[Monte Carlo]

By the way, the opposite of a 'power-gamer' is a 'content tourist.'

[sodaTwo]

I would be very unimpressed if I do not need to conserve all resources and try to min/max to survive any of the major encounters in this game.

 

[Gatt9]

I just don't understand why there's even a debate about how to balance a game for everybody in a single-player experience.

 

The more I think about it, the odder it is. And what if, like me, you think power-gaming (pejorative term, it means enjoying optimal builds for the hell of it) isn't actually that bad? If you want story-tyme, read a book. If you want to play a game that evokes the IE games of yore, buy this and use the difficulty sliders and options to play the game you want.

 

It really is that simple.

 

These topics pop up in the first few weeks of almost every CRPG's development. It really boils down to three issues very consistently:

 

1. Some people are worried their favorite class will be unplayable, because historically non-combat centric classes got the shaft in CRPGs (Think Thieves, Diplomats).

2. Some people cannot stand the thought that someone somehwere might play the game "Wrong".

3. Someo people cannot stand the idea that they might be perceived to be playing the game "Wrong" if they don't powergame and let it bother them.

 

This argument is illogical because it is based on the premise that all skills in the game are applied equally to all environments. What about a character who has absurdly high DPS based on a high rate of attack with a low damage weapon, but is unable to overcome the damage threshold or damage resistance of his or her target? What about a character who relies solely on magic and can out-damage everyone else in many cases, but is rendered helpless when up against a creature or creatures who are resistant or immune to his attacks?

 

You really should've followed the conversation backwards. I addressed your concerns in my first post in the "Controlled imbalance" section.

[soulmata]

You're still approaching the problem from the standpoint of MMO development, which has no place in a single-player role playing gaming. "Class Balance" is meaningless in a single player game. You don't need to control it. Make your mechanics, make your plot, and then let emergent gameplay do the rest.

Edited October 28, 2012 by soulmata

[Infiltrator_SF]

You're still approaching the problem from the standpoint of MMO development, which has no place in a single-player role playing gaming. "Class Balance" is meaningless in a single player game. You don't need to control it. Make your mechanics, make your plot, and then let emergent gameplay do the rest.

 

There has to be class balance in relation to class balance against the world, but there obviously is no need to analyze which class would beat each class in a 1 on 1 situation from a PvP perspective.

 

Now, someone might say - "a lot of the NPCs you face against just might be classes that a player can choose him/herself", to which I would reply - the mechanics/item combinations that players can exploit surpass those that are utilized by the AI so, in the end, the problem cancels itself out.

 

In the end, all of the classes should have a spot in the world, some of them better at something, others at other things, some classes being specialized more, while others being able to fit multiple roles. The only balance that has to be taken in consideration is that there shouldn't be a no-brainer class/kit to pick. For example, it would be ok that on higher difficulties, you absolutely need a healer, but it would be bad if there was one class/kit that was outright the best pick regardless of situation/composition.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Infiltrator_SF

[Corvus Metus]

I'd be disappointed if there was no "min-maxing" to some degree, especially since the established goal is to blend everything that was great about the IE games into one big ball of awesome.

 

What made every non-Planescape: Torment IE game great was the combat and min-maxing aspect (although I'd argue Baldur's Gate also had story going for it). To take that away, in my opinion, defeats the purpose.

 

Also, min-maxing in RPGs isn't always DPS - a lot of people forget that. My favorite character (in table-top) D&D (3.5) could deal some decent damage - but couldn't last more than a couple rounds in an extended melee without support. However, he had very good saves and had the ability to ignore pretty much any spell effect on a successful save - and spell resistance to boot. He was min-maxed, but his role wasn't killing everything in one blow. It was to support the other fighters and more or less take out enemy mages.