Balancing games - Can it be too much?

[cavemandiary]

Although I agree that class passives should be looked at, one should definitely look at silver tides before battle forged.

 

On the flip side, wellspring of life is worse than most non-godlike passives and most certainly not worth the loss of a helm.

[evilcat]

There could be too much balance, especially with nerfs. Since that could lead to design abilities to not be too good/special. As a result none ability feels special, and everything is just  +10% dps. Contex is important, and thinking "how good the class as whole is" "can the class be build in several ways and be top viable?" and "can party be build in many ways, or some classes are almost obligatory?"

 

Generally with PoE is not that bad. Game definetly improved since release. It is even better if your prefered platform allows backtracking patches.

[demeisen]

To my way of viewing single player CRPGs, "balance" isn't about this-class vs that-class, it's about the player vs the game world.  I don't need or want all the classes to feel similar in power or abilities.  I'm cool if a squishy wizard would be totally unable to solo the game, because for all his AoE firepower there are no adequate defensive spells and he'll die quickly when he gets beat on.  I'm cool if a studly tank can't solo it either, because for all his damage-soaking tankiness he runs out of stamina or whatever before he can singlehandedly beat everybody in a big crowd.  But together, the tank can keep bad guys off the caster, and the caster can damage them from afar, and they can do something as a team that neither alone could do.  Ditto when you add in the other kinds of classes to the mix.

 

That kind of inter-class synergy is what I like about CRPGs, and it requires there not be too much overlap between classes, or everything becomes nondescript and grey.  I want my party taken as a whole to feel balanced with what the game world throws at me.  I feel the V1 PoE fell down a little there in some ways, with quite a few overpowered features and abilities.  From what I've seen of V3 so far, it feels better for this kind of balance, especially on PoD.

[why]

I agree, demeisen, and further, engineering the game in order to satisfy folks who want solo runs has diminished the need for the synergistic relationships you describe. I really wish solo character runs hadn't even been a consideration.

[Valorian]

Although I agree that class passives should be looked at, one should definitely look at silver tides before battle forged.

 

Both are extremely strong, but I find battle-forged more versatile. A fire godlike can destroy things while being stunned or paralyzed, for example. Bonus DR helps too. If you're the only one left standing, healing with silver tides while being perma-stunned won't help you much. 

[Baron Pampa]

I agree, demeisen, and further, engineering the game in order to satisfy folks who want solo runs has diminished the need for the synergistic relationships you describe. I really wish solo character runs hadn't even been a consideration.

 

As far as I remember, solo runs weren't a consideration. It has been said that if they will be possible, it will be by chance and not design. I think I remember statements for a short time before or after the release that solo is impossible in the game, but players have shown that it can be done very fast. Post-release tweaks also don't seem to indicate that there is emphasis on solo runs.

[Ohioastro]

The idea of balance in a single player game can be dangerous if the multiplayer definition is applied: e.g. that one class is more useful than another.  In PoE terms, for example, let's say that a party containing six members of one class can trivialize the game.

 

So what?

 

Alternatively, let's say that it's almost impossible to solo the game with one class.

 

Again, so what?

 

The balance problem comes in when the design decisions needed to "solve" one or another of these problems interferes with things that people do in more normal contexts.  So a chanter ability that is perfectly reasonable with one becomes "overpowered" with six and gets neutered - impacting people who wouldn't run with a gimmick party.  The net effect is that fun options get sacrificed at the altar of the balance gods, leaving a bunch of bland and interchangeable options.  This is an active disease in MMOs, leaving the equivalent of various shades of off-white as the only colors.

[anameforobsidian]

 

The idea behind less multiclassing bringing less diversity is that multiclassing creates ridiculously optimized builds, so no sane player could refuse them.  And designers would either have to let a significant subset of players faceroll the content, or raise the difficulty so everyone is forced into those builds.  You see this a lot in MMOs, but it happens in other games too.

 

The thing about these builds you're talking about is that there are hundreds of them. There's no "ultimate" build - that's a myth. Some people will claim to have found the one true build - but they can never agree on which it really is.

 

Also, people constantly seem to forget that any new and complex system will take time to exploit. The core of D&D has existed since the 70s. It's hardly a surprise that some powerful combinations have been discovered.

 

But I recommend looking up some build guides available around the web. You'd be surprised at just how many "ultra" builds exist out there.

 

Also, even if there was a single ultra build - why should the designers concern themselves with players going that route? Why did they introduce "Story Time" mode if they don't want players to walk through the combat?

 

 

They introduced story mode so they could expand the playerbase to players who can't tolerate normal difficulty.  Wanting money is not the same thing a debalancing the game.  

 

And it's not one ultimate build that's worrying.  It's difficulty being designed around a few unskippable feats or races.  How many martial classes in DnD online skip evasion?  It was very few from what I saw.

[Gromnir]

The idea of balance in a single player game can be dangerous if the multiplayer definition is applied: e.g. that one class is more useful than another.  In PoE terms, for example, let's say that a party containing six members of one class can trivialize the game.

 

So what?

 

Alternatively, let's say that it's almost impossible to solo the game with one class.

 

Again, so what?

 

The balance problem comes in when the design decisions needed to "solve" one or another of these problems interferes with things that people do in more normal contexts.  So a chanter ability that is perfectly reasonable with one becomes "overpowered" with six and gets neutered - impacting people who wouldn't run with a gimmick party.  The net effect is that fun options get sacrificed at the altar of the balance gods, leaving a bunch of bland and interchangeable options.  This is an active disease in MMOs, leaving the equivalent of various shades of off-white as the only colors.

so what.  so what?  

 

am not thinking it should take much effort to see why, from a developer pov  "it's almost impossible to solo the game with one class," would be bad.  player gets frustrated and angry if they cannot beat a game, and if the reason they cannot beat the game is 'cause the developers put a trapped choice, such as a broken class, into the game, then the player is gonna have justification for being angry with the developer.  that is bad business.  crpg is 'bout choices, but if a considerable number o' those choices is fraudulent or only useful with specific builds or in certain situations, then your choices is fraudulent.  

 

and the excuse that a game is single-player, so balance should not matter has never been particularly convincing to Gromnir.  as we noted earlier, balance actual promotes diversity by making more o' the available talents, abilities and powers in the game... viable.  with these oft repeated poe balance discussions, the  obsidian developers observed (more than once) that they has benefited from having been able to gather considerable data on how folks actual play some o' the most popular crpgs from the past couple decades.  obsidian folks has been around the block.  watch how folks actual built characters for the fallouts and other classic crpgs.  Doppelschwert mentioned the issue earlier in this thread, so am only repeating, but if you got a game with literal thousands o' possible choices, but only a handful or two o' builds is actual being used by players, then am thinking that the balance issue is salient.  ask tim cain how many builds were actual used by the vast majority o' fo players.  balance leads to More diversity.  takes little effort to add gazillions o' useless character development choices to a game. if only a limited number o' choices is actual used/useable, then it is a development fail.  

 

not directed at you, but frequent the arguments against  balance is actual balance arguments.  complain that X feature were nerfed into uselessness is NOT an argument against balance.  if you observe that the developers removed the usefulness o' a build, weapon or talent, that is a balance issue.  does such stuff happen frequently?  sure.  when the developers attempt to fix, they can go too far... or they can unexpected break something else.  but nerfing the fun out o' a talent or having a build unexpected become useless is a balancing issue.  is not that the developers were wrong to balance or that they balanced too much.  sometimes the developers get it wrong and they hurt balance when attempting to improve.  even so, the problem with nerfings and breakings is not that  the developers did too much to balance, but rather that they failed to achieve balance.  

 

HA! Good Fun!