Balancing versus realism?

[eschaton]

As someone who cut my teeth on the 2nd Edition Infinity Engine games, I loved how different the game felt playing with different characters.  Mages, for example, were weak as kittens and near useless at the beginning of BG1, but absolutely necessary by the end of BG2.  In contrast, fighters were fun out of the box, but didn't scale upward to the same awesomesauce.  While in one sense magic is not realistic, you shouldn't expect a powerful fighter to be able to defeat a powerful spellcaster mano-a-mano.  Another example is Arcanum, where it was clearly harder to be a gunslinger tech character (need tons of gear, for example), but it felt so rewarding.  

 

I feel like since then RPGs have been too concerned with "balancing" all the classes (both later D&D editions and PC games), and it's taken a lot of the fun out of the systems.  While mages still do play a lot more "strategically," most non-spellcasters in a lot of systems have special attacks which basically act like magic spells.  DA:O was perhaps the worst in this (how does one bowman release a hail of arrows by themselves?).  When everything pretty much plays the same, the only thing having a class gives you is a different visual appearance and whatever in-game dialogue and options the story has for your class.   

 

Regardless, where do other people fall on this?  Do you think it's more important to ensure that no class has unique drawbacks which must be worked around?  Or is working through a class's weakness part of the challenge?

[motorizer]

I don't want to see any special abilities for no magic classes that are basically reskinned magic spells, like your dragon age example, as I've said in other threads, I prefer to pay as a non magic user, and I'd rather it felt like a non magic user

special abilities should be things like special combat moves for fighters or targeted shots for archers

 

I do think it should be reasonably balanced though, each class should have their strengths and weaknesses, there shouldn't be one uberclass that defeats all others

[Prometheus]

I think it's good if not all classes have the same utility in every situation. But I think it's bad game design,if your class is always worse than other classes (at some level). Josh Sawyer said that in Project Eternity you won't have classes that are weak in the beginning and become the most powerful classes in the end. see qoute below:

 

Someone asked an interesting question about PE on the forum: "Are we going to see the classic power evolution where a mage starts out as relativly weak and then becomes powerfull were as the fighter goes the other way around?" Care to comment?


I think I may have answered this in the past, but no, that isn't the intention. I'd like all of the classes to have good and reliable utility at the beginning of the game that increases at an even pace as the levels rise.

[Gumbercules]

There aren't any non-magic classes in Project Eternity. All classes use some form of soul magic to do what would normally be considered superhuman things.

 

I don't think it's necessary for classes to have different power curves in order to still play and feel different. I'm fine with all classes having some degree of spell-like abilities as long as those abilities aren't just re-skinned versions of the same thing. If you look at what Obsidian have revealed so far, you can see that they're aiming for classes that have distinct strengths/weaknesses and roles while still sharing roughly the same power level.

[Ulquiorra]

motorizer

If you don't want to play "magic" user then why you want to play a game where magic is everywhere ?

 

from what i heard in PE even fighter will have special abilitis to cover their "uber human" powers. The same for mages ....

 

I sudgest you to play GTA or mass effect as a solider ... in fantasy setting magic is in everything even in enchanted swords ...

[J.E. Sawyer]

A lot of the more "magic-y" flavored things that fighters, rogues, et al. can take will probably wind up being Talents (optional) instead of core class Abilities.  If you want to play an effectively non-magical fighter or rogue, you will probably be able to do so, but there will be more fantastic options available for players who want them.

[mcmanusaur]

I can pretty much only echo what other people have said about how classes should be balanced and have similar power curves. Personally I don't prefer heavy magic-using classes, and in many cases I don't see what claim they have to being inherently more powerful than characters who focus on other skills. After all, in most similar fantasy magic is subject to substantial limits, perhaps significantly less limited than non-magic but quite limited nonetheless.

 

But if you really think about it, for many games most of what we have to go on regarding the relative strength of magic is the mechanics governing our characters, since there's not exactly any shrewd way for this topic to be covered within the setting's in-game lore, so questioning whether these reflect the setting's realism is a bit dubious. For me, the mechanics are one of the main things that informs our perception of the setting, and if classes are evenly balanced it's because magic is balanced in the setting's "reality". In some sense, balance may be the same thing as realism in certain games (because fantasy settings decide their own rules, and if this wasn't the case then magic wouldn't even exist in the first place), so I'd consider this a false dichotomy. Balance vs. imbalance is a question of what is realistic in game's setting.

 

Magic is a very slippery slope, and for this reason I'd not even mind settings that didn't even include it- at least in a form that player characters could harness its power- at all. I disagree that magic is everything in fantasy (settings are the most interesting part to me), but it can be interesting if implemented correctly. However, it seems that as soon as you introduce any speck of player-controlled magic, you have the crowd that plays magic-users asking for extra power. Despite efforts to frame the issue in terms of "realism" or whatever, it becomes a bit difficult for me to convince myself that this isn't related to how the primary appeal of magic-using characters is specialness...

Edited June 5, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Micamo]

Magic is a very slippery slope, and for this reason I'd not even mind settings that didn't even include it- at least in a form that player characters could harness its power- at all. I disagree that magic is everything in fantasy (settings are the most interesting part to me), but it can be interesting if implemented correctly. However, it seems that as soon as you introduce any speck of player-controlled magic, you have the crowd that plays magic-users asking for extra power. Despite efforts to frame the issue in terms of "realism" or whatever, it becomes a bit difficult for me to convince myself that this isn't related to how the primary appeal of magic-using characters is specialness...

 

Well, for me, the appeal of spellcasting is more about spontaneous creativity and self-expression, not really power: The more open-ended the spell is in its possibilities, the better. It's why I tend to lean toward illusions and conjuration: The cool moments in playing a caster are when you figure out a clever way to solve your problem with a single spell. I get bored really fast playing a standard evocation "kill it with fire" character (like the Mailman) no matter how relatively efficient or powerful it actually is.

[Lephys]

Role-playing is about having the choice to play different-yet-viable roles. If the choices presented aren't reasonably viable, then you've defeated the purpose of your choice-presentation in the first place. Therefore, balancing's role in all this is not to make sure that the classes don't have different strengths and weaknesses, but simply to make sure that one class doesn't have MORE strengths and weaknesses than another.

 

When being a Warrior makes 80% of the game easy, and being a Mage (all other things the same) makes only 20% of the game easy, you have a problem. That being said, "balanced" doesn't mean 50/50. 45/55 might be fine, or even 40/60. It really depends on a truckload of factors. But, ideally, it should be pretty even.

 

And it's the utility of things, not the specifics. If a Warrior can Great Cleave and strike 5 enemies at once with a melee attack, that doesn't mean a Rogue NEEDS an ability that can strike 5 enemies with a melee attack. It's what that can accomplish. If the Warrior can do that, and 5 other AOE attacks, and the Rogue gets 0 AOE attacks whatsoever, but all his skills/abilities/talents cost the same amount of points, then you've gipped that class. Figuratively, the Warrior spent a silver coin and got 5 bananas, and the Rogue spent a point and only got 1 banana. So, the Rogue's "balance" need not even be a melee ability, or an ability that strikes 5 foes. As long as the Rogue possesses the potential for SOME means of taking on multiple enemies (even if it's more control-based and/or takes longer, and is less about straight-up damage dealt or knock-around effects, etc.), then you've achieved your goal of balance.

 

So, the balancing that needs to occur is more in fundamental utility and less in specific effects and actions (or how, exactly, that utility is achieved.) You don't go giving one class a minimum of 15-second cast times on all abilities, while giving another class all 1-second cast times on abilities, when the enemies (and the tactical need to cast quicker rather than more slowly) remain unchanged for both classes. That sort of thing.

[Sacred_Path]

In IE games, most parties ended up looking same-y, and the only choice you had to make was wether to be a fighter and pick up a mage, or be a mage and pick up a fighter. I'm very enthused by the PE promise to really allow for diverse parties.

[motorizer]

motorizer

If you don't want to play "magic" user then why you want to play a game where magic is everywhere ?

 

from what i heard in PE even fighter will have special abilitis to cover their "uber human" powers. The same for mages ....

 

I sudgest you to play GTA or mass effect as a solider ... in fantasy setting magic is in everything even in enchanted swords ...

 

Because I like the settings and the creatures etc..and I like the infinity RPGs, I'd prefer a setting where magic is less common but there isn't one...mount and blade is about it for non magical fantasy settings....

 

what I don't like is being railroaded into a playstyle because the devs did some fancy effects.. I want fighters to be fighters, and rogues to be rogues

 

Yeah sure..tell me to play shoot em ups and action games instead why don't you?  why don't you go and cast spells in dishonored instead? 

 

 

What I don't get is why people want magic to be so common that it's mundane, surely if you want to play a wizard then you want that wizard to be something special? wizards in fantasy literature are generally something rare and to be feared or held in awe...gamers tend to want it to just be a job.....

Edited June 5, 2013 by motorizer

[Lephys]

Because I like the settings and the creatures etc..and I like the infinity RPGs, I'd prefer a setting where magic is less common but there isn't one...mount and blade is about it for non magical fantasy settings....

 

what I don't like is being railroaded into a playstyle because the devs did some fancy effects.. I want fighters to be fighters, and rogues to be rogues

 

Yeah sure..tell me to play shoot em ups and action games instead why don't you?  why don't you go and cast spells in dishonored instead? 

Well, at a certain point, it comes down to the setting. I mean, if you hate dinosaurs, there's only so much the devs of a prehistoric RPG can do to make sure your playthrough isn't saturated by dinosaurs.

 

Not that P:E is just going to be a giant ball of magic, necessarily. But, it IS set in a world in which souls (something almost everyone in the world possesses) yield supernatural (natural being reality's capabilities) powers to a variety of degrees. So, it kind of comes down to the question "How much of 'magic' is simply 'supernatural' stuff?" Does a Warrior empowering his weapon to knock someone 40 feet constitute magic? If so, then, like I said, you can't really take out all the dinosaurs and still have it set in dinosaurland. But, if not, then it's perfectly feasible that the Warrior can, for example, be restricted mainly to very physical, personal-strength abilities that skirt the borders of the realm of magic, while other classes are more strictly magical.

[mcmanusaur]

Well, I think it's important to differentiate between magic and fantasy, and different types of magic. In regard to fantasy, I think that the definition has to remain very broad, including anything that doesn't constitute the present reality or some possible alternate history. I suppose magic can be considered a non-physical property that certain entities possess and others don't, meaning that it's ultimately defined with respect to the setting. If everything in a setting possesses that magic, it sort of ceases to be magic and simply becomes the way things work for that setting. Thus exclusivity would be an important aspect of magic, but this still doesn't answer who or what magic is exclusive to. I personally find settings in which the world is magical, or certain creatures are magical, to be more interesting than settings that have humans or other playable races who can use magic. In the absence of the latter, of course the kind of balancing issues brought up in this thread are of less concern, and I think that's preferable to having to negotiate magic's power and exclusivity. When you start giving magic to certain playable classes, the whole exclusivity aspect gets a whole lot more complicated, as demonstrated by many of the recent posts pondering about whether every class technically has magic if their abilities are exclusive and more or less supernatural.

Edited June 5, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[eschaton]

Thanks for the comments folks.  Some elaboration on a few points.  

 

1.  When I talk about realism, I understand that it might seem an oxymoron to use regarding magic.  That said, it stands to reason that magic-users should be more powerful than fighters.  Even if you have the best damned swordsman in the world, he's not going to be able to compete with a fireball, in terms of the real world.  I suppose they have an in-game canon method that swordsmen can use "magic" to be better than that.  But I still think it's a chump move.  

 

2.  I don't think I'm arguing that some classes should be gimped or anything.  But I liked the old hierarchy where some classes were clearly made for support, others were frontline tanks to soak up damage, etc.  It made every class play differently.  Realistically, there's no reason why you can't do the same thing with a "balanced" system (with different customization meaning near "kits"), but I do wonder if it would lead to less consideration of tactics (how character X fits into the party) and more min/maxing.  

 

3.  Riffing off the last point, I think concern about the play balance, taken past a certain degree, is a symptom of powergaming.  Yes, I don't want to see a situation where a class is all but unplayable in the early game.  But I see nothing wrong with having some characters having a harder time of it.  It's like if you roleplayed coming up from poverty versus a noble birth.  In the case of the former, you might be penniless, but you shouldn't expect some perk in exchange for doing so.  Similarly, if one class-combination is nearly game breaking, it shouldn't matter to a true roleplayer - just don't play that class.  

[Lephys]

3.  Riffing off the last point, I think concern about the play balance, taken past a certain degree, is a symptom of powergaming.  Yes, I don't want to see a situation where a class is all but unplayable in the early game.  But I see nothing wrong with having some characters having a harder time of it.  It's like if you roleplayed coming up from poverty versus a noble birth.  In the case of the former, you might be penniless, but you shouldn't expect some perk in exchange for doing so.  Similarly, if one class-combination is nearly game breaking, it shouldn't matter to a true roleplayer - just don't play that class.

Rolling with that example, you'd actually automatically have several advantages as a penniless peasant (assuming you're still capable enough to do the things "adventurers" do) rather than a noble-born. Anonymity, for one. Not to mention you don't have to worry about people coming after you for all that fancy gilded stuff you don't possess, nor worry about who among your 1,000-person entourage you can trust and who you can't, etc.

 

The point being, there's almost ALWAYS a tradeoff that balances things, in one way or another. Just imagine multiple scales, and take the average of each side of all of them, as opposed to just one scale.

[Gumbercules]

Thanks for the comments folks.  Some elaboration on a few points.  

 

1.  When I talk about realism, I understand that it might seem an oxymoron to use regarding magic.  That said, it stands to reason that magic-users should be more powerful than fighters.  Even if you have the best damned swordsman in the world, he's not going to be able to compete with a fireball, in terms of the real world.  I suppose they have an in-game canon method that swordsmen can use "magic" to be better than that.  But I still think it's a chump move.  

 

2.  I don't think I'm arguing that some classes should be gimped or anything.  But I liked the old hierarchy where some classes were clearly made for support, others were frontline tanks to soak up damage, etc.  It made every class play differently.  Realistically, there's no reason why you can't do the same thing with a "balanced" system (with different customization meaning near "kits"), but I do wonder if it would lead to less consideration of tactics (how character X fits into the party) and more min/maxing.  

 

3.  Riffing off the last point, I think concern about the play balance, taken past a certain degree, is a symptom of powergaming.  Yes, I don't want to see a situation where a class is all but unplayable in the early game.  But I see nothing wrong with having some characters having a harder time of it.  It's like if you roleplayed coming up from poverty versus a noble birth.  In the case of the former, you might be penniless, but you shouldn't expect some perk in exchange for doing so.  Similarly, if one class-combination is nearly game breaking, it shouldn't matter to a true roleplayer - just don't play that class.  

 

1. I don't see why allowing swordsmen and other warriors to have superhuman abilities would be a chump move. Beowulf ripped a monster's arm off and slew a dragon with the help of only a single other warrior, Heracles had super strength and wrestled a giant lion monster, and warriors in wuxia stories had all kinds of supernatural abilities (remember the flying in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon?). There's at least as much basis for powerful warriors as there is for powerful mages.

 

2. This could lead to a reduction of strategy, if all party combinations are equally valid, but the tactical considerations of making sure that everyone is in the right place and doing the right thing still remains. You'll still have to consider how character X fits into the party, it'll just happen during the battles. Plus I seriously doubt that Obsidian will be able to balance the game so thoroughly that all options are completely equal. They just won't be starting from a place of "Wizards rule, fighters drool!"

 

3. That's terrible game design. Seriously, what's the point of offering a class you don't expect people to play? If there are eleven classes to choose from, I expect to have an equally valid chance of having fun playing any of them, with personal tastes being the main differentiator rather than a conscious decision on the designers' parts to make some classes better than others.

[mcmanusaur]

Thanks for the comments folks.  Some elaboration on a few points.  

 

1.  When I talk about realism, I understand that it might seem an oxymoron to use regarding magic.  That said, it stands to reason that magic-users should be more powerful than fighters.  Even if you have the best damned swordsman in the world, he's not going to be able to compete with a fireball, in terms of the real world.  I suppose they have an in-game canon method that swordsmen can use "magic" to be better than that.  But I still think it's a chump move.  

 

2.  I don't think I'm arguing that some classes should be gimped or anything.  But I liked the old hierarchy where some classes were clearly made for support, others were frontline tanks to soak up damage, etc.  It made every class play differently.  Realistically, there's no reason why you can't do the same thing with a "balanced" system (with different customization meaning near "kits"), but I do wonder if it would lead to less consideration of tactics (how character X fits into the party) and more min/maxing.  

 

3.  Riffing off the last point, I think concern about the play balance, taken past a certain degree, is a symptom of powergaming.  Yes, I don't want to see a situation where a class is all but unplayable in the early game.  But I see nothing wrong with having some characters having a harder time of it.  It's like if you roleplayed coming up from poverty versus a noble birth.  In the case of the former, you might be penniless, but you shouldn't expect some perk in exchange for doing so.  Similarly, if one class-combination is nearly game breaking, it shouldn't matter to a true roleplayer - just don't play that class.  

1. You're making a huge leap of logic with your "stands to reason"; what is this conclusion based on? What in the real world corresponds with a magical fireball that would allow you to make that comparison on a "realistic" level? Yes, it's pretty much an oxymoron to try to evaluate magic "realistically"; a setting can have extremely weak magic or extremely strong magic, because magic is whatever the creator wants it to be.

 

2. How does an overall long-term balanced system detract from situational tactics? Isn't an unbalanced system actually asking for min-maxing because it encourages you to just "max" the number of powerful-class characters in your party and "min" the number of weak-class characters, rather than including a variety of classes since you'll never know which you'll need?

 

3. Wait, so asking for certain classes to be inherently more powerful isn't powergaming, but asking for a nice balance is? You could make that argument if it was somehow established that mages should objectively be more powerful, but that point hasn't been established yet. I don't really see how character class is comparable to socioeconomic background, to me starting as a famous noble would be more comparable to starting the game at level 20, regardless of class.

Edited June 6, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[TrashMan]

Cross-class-balance is something I don't see a need for in single-player games. It's not competetive, so if someoen wants a party of all mages that make the gmae a cakewalk, I don't feel a need to stop them.

 

Nor do I see the need for every class to have an answer (and the same one) for every situation.

Mage has AOE? Fighter must have AOE! Rogue must have AOE! Of course, this is simplistic example, but you get the gist.

 

 

That said, the scale of the problem depends on the setting.

If the setting has vastly powerfull mages that waste armies and rule kingdoms, but in-game a mage is no-stronger than your average warrior, then something is wrong.

 

Of course, there is a certain scale and finesse to these things, it's not a single variable in play.

[Greensleeve]

Thanks for the comments folks.  Some elaboration on a few points.  

 

1.  When I talk about realism, I understand that it might seem an oxymoron to use regarding magic.  That said, it stands to reason that magic-users should be more powerful than fighters.  Even if you have the best damned swordsman in the world, he's not going to be able to compete with a fireball, in terms of the real world.  I suppose they have an in-game canon method that swordsmen can use "magic" to be better than that.  But I still think it's a chump move.  

 

2.  I don't think I'm arguing that some classes should be gimped or anything.  But I liked the old hierarchy where some classes were clearly made for support, others were frontline tanks to soak up damage, etc.  It made every class play differently.  Realistically, there's no reason why you can't do the same thing with a "balanced" system (with different customization meaning near "kits"), but I do wonder if it would lead to less consideration of tactics (how character X fits into the party) and more min/maxing.  

 

3.  Riffing off the last point, I think concern about the play balance, taken past a certain degree, is a symptom of powergaming.  Yes, I don't want to see a situation where a class is all but unplayable in the early game.  But I see nothing wrong with having some characters having a harder time of it.  It's like if you roleplayed coming up from poverty versus a noble birth.  In the case of the former, you might be penniless, but you shouldn't expect some perk in exchange for doing so.  Similarly, if one class-combination is nearly game breaking, it shouldn't matter to a true roleplayer - just don't play that class.  

 

1. Why is someone who uses his soul power to set someone on fire 'logically' more powerful than someone who uses his soul power to make his body a killing machine? Where does it "stand to reason" that the first one is more powerful than the first one? Consider the setting before you make such claims. 

 

2. Having the classes perform different roles is good game design. Having certain roles be worse than others, or some classes capable of performing multiple roles, is bad game design. And no, more balance would lead to greater diversity. It's quite simply to show: in a unbalanced system, it would be better to just just the most powerful classes, and as such reduce the tactical complexity of the game. In a balanced system, there would be a much larger amount of valid choices, creating greater tactical diversity. 

 

3. No class should be inherently worse or gimped or have a harder time at different points in the game. Some builds having a harder time on the other hand is perfectly fine. And don't bring out the "true roleplayer" bull****. Creating capable, powerful characters does in no way hinder roleplaying. It is not a zero-sum game, despite what is commonly touted. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Thanks for the comments folks.  Some elaboration on a few points.  

 

1.  When I talk about realism, I understand that it might seem an oxymoron to use regarding magic.  That said, it stands to reason that magic-users should be more powerful than fighters.  Even if you have the best damned swordsman in the world, he's not going to be able to compete with a fireball, in terms of the real world.  I suppose they have an in-game canon method that swordsmen can use "magic" to be better than that.  But I still think it's a chump move.  

 

2.  I don't think I'm arguing that some classes should be gimped or anything.  But I liked the old hierarchy where some classes were clearly made for support, others were frontline tanks to soak up damage, etc.  It made every class play differently.  Realistically, there's no reason why you can't do the same thing with a "balanced" system (with different customization meaning near "kits"), but I do wonder if it would lead to less consideration of tactics (how character X fits into the party) and more min/maxing.  

 

3.  Riffing off the last point, I think concern about the play balance, taken past a certain degree, is a symptom of powergaming.  Yes, I don't want to see a situation where a class is all but unplayable in the early game.  But I see nothing wrong with having some characters having a harder time of it.  It's like if you roleplayed coming up from poverty versus a noble birth.  In the case of the former, you might be penniless, but you shouldn't expect some perk in exchange for doing so.  Similarly, if one class-combination is nearly game breaking, it shouldn't matter to a true roleplayer - just don't play that class.

 

1. When magic comes into play, it is best to throw realism out the window IMO. On PE with soul powers, it is plausible for a fighter to perform superhuman feats(such as cutting a giant in two or taking a fireball to the face without being incinerated) that are on par with what a Mage could do.

 

2. That is exactly what is going to happen in PE. Different classes are going to have different functions and be better in certain circumstances. You don't need a class to be considerably more powerful to accomplish that.

[eschaton]

 

Rolling with that example, you'd actually automatically have several advantages as a penniless peasant (assuming you're still capable enough to do the things "adventurers" do) rather than a noble-born. Anonymity, for one. Not to mention you don't have to worry about people coming after you for all that fancy gilded stuff you don't possess, nor worry about who among your 1,000-person entourage you can trust and who you can't, etc.

 

The point being, there's almost ALWAYS a tradeoff that balances things, in one way or another. Just imagine multiple scales, and take the average of each side of all of them, as opposed to just one scale.

 

 

There's always tradeoffs, but they don't always have to be balanced.  Think back to randomly rolling dice for D&D characters in 2nd edition.  Sometimes you just roll ****ty stats, and there's no consolation.  Most people keep doing it until they get average (or great) stats, but this is a powergaming thing.  A true roleplayer would take those ****ty stats (even if it meant a below-average character) and just play the challenge of being an all-around subpar character.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I don't see why allowing swordsmen and other warriors to have superhuman abilities would be a chump move. Beowulf ripped a monster's arm off and slew a dragon with the help of only a single other warrior, Heracles had super strength and wrestled a giant lion monster, and warriors in wuxia stories had all kinds of supernatural abilities (remember the flying in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon?). There's at least as much basis for powerful warriors as there is for powerful mages.

 

2. This could lead to a reduction of strategy, if all party combinations are equally valid, but the tactical considerations of making sure that everyone is in the right place and doing the right thing still remains. You'll still have to consider how character X fits into the party, it'll just happen during the battles. Plus I seriously doubt that Obsidian will be able to balance the game so thoroughly that all options are completely equal. They just won't be starting from a place of "Wizards rule, fighters drool!"

 

3. That's terrible game design. Seriously, what's the point of offering a class you don't expect people to play? If there are eleven classes to choose from, I expect to have an equally valid chance of having fun playing any of them, with personal tastes being the main differentiator rather than a conscious decision on the designers' parts to make some classes better than others.

 

 

 

1.  I didn't say that I was absolutely opposed to warriors having "magic."  I don't like the recent trend in RPGs though that every class has AOE "spells," or that every class has stun attacks, etc.   

 

2.  What I mean is I don't want to see a party which is made up of say all warriors (who picked the right skills) having an equally easy time of it as a mixed party with warriors, rogues, mages, etc.  If warriors have "magic" AOE attacks, stun, backstab, can smash open locks, and it results in a game not being appreciably more difficult, I think developers have screwed things up.  

 

3.  I was just thinking back to the anger Bioware fans had about the whole Arcane Warrior thing in DA:O.  I had no desire to ever play one, so it didn't bother me a bit.  If your own favored class is hamstrung, that's one thing, but if another weird class combination is exploitable, I don't see it affecting anyone except those who are tempted to use it (and have to enjoy it, for that matter).  

 

1. You're making a huge leap of logic with your "stands to reason"; what is this conclusion based on? What in the real world corresponds with a magical fireball that would allow you to make that comparison on a "realistic" level? Yes, it's pretty much an oxymoron to try to evaluate magic "realistically"; a setting can have extremely weak magic or extremely strong magic, because magic is whatever the creator wants it to be.

 

 

 

2. How does an overall long-term balanced system detract from situational tactics? Isn't an unbalanced system actually asking for min-maxing because it encourages you to just "max" the number of powerful-class characters in your party and "min" the number of weak-class characters, rather than including a variety of classes since you'll never know which you'll need?

 

3. Wait, so asking for certain classes to be inherently more powerful isn't powergaming, but asking for a nice balance is? You could make that argument if it was somehow established that mages should objectively be more powerful, but that point hasn't been established yet. I don't really see how character class is comparable to socioeconomic background, to me starting as a famous noble would be more comparable to starting the game at level 20, regardless of class.

 

 

1.  A fireball to the face should be....a fireball to the face.  It should kill you or horribly burn you to the point you can't attack, provided you're not armored.  But then again, I've always disliked the way RPGs have dealt with damage in general.  Hit points are stupid (and were originally brought into D&D as Gygax imported rules from a Battleship game).  You can see how nonsensical they are from games like Fallout when you can shoot someone in the head and have them not only not die, but keep attacking you.  A system of wounds with a high chance of instant death if you hit in a critical body part would be more realistic.  

 

2.  I dunno.  I knew that in a lot of D&D games I could get away with an intelligence of 3 for my characters.  It didn't mean I did it.  Hell, when my BG protagonist was even a class where intelligence wasn't needed, I still tended to set my intelligence at 13 or so, just because I don't like playing stupid characters.  

 

3.  For the record, I actually don't like playing mages much, unless I dual over from something else which gives me more versatility (my fav in BG2 was Swashbuckler).  I liked how I needed to think strategically about how to break through the defense of mages however, as it forced me to think through which counterspells I needed to dispell a mage's protections and make him weak.  If I could just run in there with a warrior and zerg Kangaxx I'd feel cheated.  

 

 

Cross-class-balance is something I don't see a need for in single-player games. It's not competetive, so if someoen wants a party of all mages that make the gmae a cakewalk, I don't feel a need to stop them.

 

Nor do I see the need for every class to have an answer (and the same one) for every situation.

Mage has AOE? Fighter must have AOE! Rogue must have AOE! Of course, this is simplistic example, but you get the gist.

 

 

That said, the scale of the problem depends on the setting.

If the setting has vastly powerfull mages that waste armies and rule kingdoms, but in-game a mage is no-stronger than your average warrior, then something is wrong.

 

Of course, there is a certain scale and finesse to these things, it's not a single variable in play.

 

This is what I was trying to say.  

 

 

 

 

1. Why is someone who uses his soul power to set someone on fire 'logically' more powerful than someone who uses his soul power to make his body a killing machine? Where does it "stand to reason" that the first one is more powerful than the first one? Consider the setting before you make such claims. 

 

2. Having the classes perform different roles is good game design. Having certain roles be worse than others, or some classes capable of performing multiple roles, is bad game design. And no, more balance would lead to greater diversity. It's quite simply to show: in a unbalanced system, it would be better to just just the most powerful classes, and as such reduce the tactical complexity of the game. In a balanced system, there would be a much larger amount of valid choices, creating greater tactical diversity. 

 

3. No class should be inherently worse or gimped or have a harder time at different points in the game. Some builds having a harder time on the other hand is perfectly fine. And don't bring out the "true roleplayer" bull****. Creating capable, powerful characters does in no way hinder roleplaying. It is not a zero-sum game, despite what is commonly touted. 

 

 

You have some valid points here.  I guess in my mind, when I think about a build, what matters the most to me is the build is fun.  I guess I've been somewhat let down by more recent games because I don't feel like there's the same diversity in terms of gameplay between the classes anymore.  Again, in DA:O, once you took out the visuals there wasn't that much of a difference between playing a ranged weapons character and a mage, which made it kind of boring to play through as a different class.   

[Karkarov]

Thanks for the comments folks.  Some elaboration on a few points.  

 

1.  When I talk about realism, I understand that it might seem an oxymoron to use regarding magic.  That said, it stands to reason that magic-users should be more powerful than fighters.  Even if you have the best damned swordsman in the world, he's not going to be able to compete with a fireball, in terms of the real world.  I suppose they have an in-game canon method that swordsmen can use "magic" to be better than that.  But I still think it's a chump move.  

Uh yeah... let me be honest.  Have you ever even met an actual "master swordsman"?  I have seen a guy draw a sword, cut with it, and resheath it so fast all i felt was the wind and saw a blur.  Meanwhile a piece of paper he was cutting fell over, while the bottom half of the paper stayed still.  I also saw the same dude throw a knife over 20 feet and hit a dummy square in the forehead, and he started the throw facing the opposite direction.  Or is your mage too badass to die to something like having 6 inches of steel lodged in his eye socket?

 

Also it sounds like you are arguing in favor of the trinity.... please tell me you aren't doing that?

[Jarmo]

3. Trying to exactly balance out everything is IMO bad design coming from competitive gaming. The worst examples being the already mentioned, giving fighter a fighter AOE attacks that do exactly the same damage as wizards fireball, while giving wizard a magical weave armor that protects exactly the same as warriors plate. On the other hand, not paying any attention at all to balance is also bad. Like giving a wizard all the fighters fighting abilities and also spells, so there's nothing at all that'd make a fighter a good choice.

 

But small differences and balances are sufficient. They don't need to even out exactly. What if rogue magic is completely outlawed in some parts of the world? With magic wards in all the important locations, making sure a mage has a real hard time, being cut off from many quests and allies. Now that doesn't really sound like something that'd work in PE, but in some other game and setting it might. 

 

Or take the already mentioned start with a beggar wearing rags or start with a noble wearing plate and helped along by a squire and a manservant?

Now yeah, the pauper has some benefits. Being able to travel incognito, more likely to get into thieves guild, easier to hide, being already covered in manure. Such stuff.

On the other hand, the noble also has benefits. Loads of money, easy access to all important locations, better pay from all quests and being offered better quests.

 

While both have some advantages, it's immediately obvious the noble would have way more of them and he'd have easier time all the way.

But given how a beggar offers a whole different playthrough, I'd see myself playing that one as well. Obviously. More challenge as well, sweet.

 

But yea. Not something I'd expect or desire to see in PE.

Just that it's not necessary to spend inordinate amounts of time to make sure all classes are created equal.

[eschaton]

 

Uh yeah... let me be honest.  Have you ever even met an actual "master swordsman"?  I have seen a guy draw a sword, cut with it, and resheath it so fast all i felt was the wind and saw a blur.  Meanwhile a piece of paper he was cutting fell over, while the bottom half of the paper stayed still.  I also saw the same dude throw a knife over 20 feet and hit a dummy square in the forehead, and he started the throw facing the opposite direction.  Or is your mage too badass to die to something like having 6 inches of steel lodged in his eye socket?

 

Also it sounds like you are arguing in favor of the trinity.... please tell me you aren't doing that?

 

 

As I said, I actually don't like playing mages at all.  I just like not being able to walk right through them when they are opponents.  

 

Regardless, the real world is not perfectly balanced.  There are world-changing technologies, such as armor-piercing arrows rendering full plate ineffective.  Or firearms ultimately eliminating metal armor entirely.  

 

What is the trinity?  

[Karkarov]

What is the trinity?  

Better you don't know.  To sum it up though it is a game design crutch used in MMO's mostly to force cooperative play.

 

All classes should be balanced.  That it isn't to say a rogue shouldn't be more useful on a quest to steal the war plans from the generals tent.  Or a fighter shouldn't have the advantage in a close quarters combat inside a pit when your party is trapped.  But things should be balanced out, no one class should always be the better choice for a quest or battle.  In fact no one class should ever be the better choice even 50% of the time.

 

The game and classes need to be designed in such a way that there is no such thing as a "must have" or superior class, and all party make ups could in theory clear the game.  Baring the one exception being the idiot who gimps himself just because he thinks it is funny or you have to be weak to be "roleplaying".

Edited June 6, 2013 by Karkarov