02-21-2012, 05:02 PM
I've always thought that the best way to make sure classes are fun and balanced, particularly with regards to PvP, is to simply make NPCs use the same mechanics.
Players get a 5 second stun? So do NPCs.
Players get a 30 second mez? So do NPCs.
Players can cure poison? So can NPCs.
Players can taunt/detaunt? So can NPCs. (Mechanics that force a physical reaction, like a taunt, would be changed to things that encourage a reaction, like "you now deal 30% less damage to everyone except me".)
I think it would create a much more interesting combat experience and a lot of class balance issues would be hashed out pretty damn quick because whatever imbalanced crap the players can do, the NPCs can potentially do as well.
I also think the game designers would learn a lot about how stupid some of their stuff is if they had to sit down and write a sensible AI that uses it. "Wait -- so every time Power Stab is up, I want to use it? No tactical decision making at all? Well that's not very interesting. Why don't we just get rid of it and build that damage into the basic attack?" or "So every time I get cursed, I just want to hit 'cure' right away without regard for any other factors? Maybe this whole curse/cure idea is flawed."
That said, I think you're wrong about the balancing issue. There's no end to it and it doesn't matter if you're class based or skill based. Mount & Blade, for example, is as simple as I think you can get, yet nevertheless there's always another round of balance changes being made -- "balanced" ends up being an arbitrary, eye-of-the-beholder setting. How do you balance archers, cavalry and infantry so that they are all fun, useful, and don't simply become the dominant playtype? There's no simple math that can tell you how to balance a weapon with a 100m range against a weapon with a 1m range. It's guesswork and there's really no firm "right answer".
I think the problem with (MMO)RPGs is some fascination developers have with overwhelming the user. "Our game is super awesome! You can tell because LOOK AT ALL THESE ABILITIES." Lots of flash and sparkle, but the abilities are all arbitrary, some of them don't make sense, some of them have inane mechanics (curse/cure being one of my least favorite mechanics) and in the end you're just taking a difficult balance issue and making it ten times harder because you've created all these stupid abilities.
Both in Rift and SWTOR I had macros with 6+ abilities in them, mapped to one button, because that's just how stupid the ability design was. I will ALWAYS want to do Flame Punch, unless I can't, then I will ALWAYS want to do Spear Poke, unless I can't, then I will ALWAYS want to do Fire Throw, unless I can't....etc. There's always a ton of abilities that simply are not tactically interesting. If they would simplify their ability list down to "things that are tactically interesting" then they'd make their balance job a lot easier.
For example (SWTOR) --
"Jet Charge" -- fly to your target, 30 second cooldown. This is tactically interesting because there will be times I want to use it right away and times I want to save it. I certainly don't ALWAYS want to fly to my target (sometimes I want to run there and have the option to flying to another target -- or I run there knowing he'll do something to escape, and then I can fly to catch back up).
"Rocket Punch" -- punch target for a high damage, energy efficient, short range attack. This is not tactically interesting because if it's up, I want to do it. There is no case where I'd rather do some other attack if Rocket Punch is up.
In SWTOR, maybe (maybe!) 50% of the abilities are tactically interesting. The other 50% are not, but can still contribute to balance problems. It can also be a big factor in "perceived balance problems" because not everyone realizes that they should do Rocket Punch every time it's up, or they forget about using it, or they just plain lose track of it in their giant mass of assorted abilities.
In summary, I think simpler is better, but I don't think you can ever get away from balance issues.
Players get a 5 second stun? So do NPCs.
Players get a 30 second mez? So do NPCs.
Players can cure poison? So can NPCs.
Players can taunt/detaunt? So can NPCs. (Mechanics that force a physical reaction, like a taunt, would be changed to things that encourage a reaction, like "you now deal 30% less damage to everyone except me".)
I think it would create a much more interesting combat experience and a lot of class balance issues would be hashed out pretty damn quick because whatever imbalanced crap the players can do, the NPCs can potentially do as well.
I also think the game designers would learn a lot about how stupid some of their stuff is if they had to sit down and write a sensible AI that uses it. "Wait -- so every time Power Stab is up, I want to use it? No tactical decision making at all? Well that's not very interesting. Why don't we just get rid of it and build that damage into the basic attack?" or "So every time I get cursed, I just want to hit 'cure' right away without regard for any other factors? Maybe this whole curse/cure idea is flawed."
That said, I think you're wrong about the balancing issue. There's no end to it and it doesn't matter if you're class based or skill based. Mount & Blade, for example, is as simple as I think you can get, yet nevertheless there's always another round of balance changes being made -- "balanced" ends up being an arbitrary, eye-of-the-beholder setting. How do you balance archers, cavalry and infantry so that they are all fun, useful, and don't simply become the dominant playtype? There's no simple math that can tell you how to balance a weapon with a 100m range against a weapon with a 1m range. It's guesswork and there's really no firm "right answer".
I think the problem with (MMO)RPGs is some fascination developers have with overwhelming the user. "Our game is super awesome! You can tell because LOOK AT ALL THESE ABILITIES." Lots of flash and sparkle, but the abilities are all arbitrary, some of them don't make sense, some of them have inane mechanics (curse/cure being one of my least favorite mechanics) and in the end you're just taking a difficult balance issue and making it ten times harder because you've created all these stupid abilities.
Both in Rift and SWTOR I had macros with 6+ abilities in them, mapped to one button, because that's just how stupid the ability design was. I will ALWAYS want to do Flame Punch, unless I can't, then I will ALWAYS want to do Spear Poke, unless I can't, then I will ALWAYS want to do Fire Throw, unless I can't....etc. There's always a ton of abilities that simply are not tactically interesting. If they would simplify their ability list down to "things that are tactically interesting" then they'd make their balance job a lot easier.
For example (SWTOR) --
"Jet Charge" -- fly to your target, 30 second cooldown. This is tactically interesting because there will be times I want to use it right away and times I want to save it. I certainly don't ALWAYS want to fly to my target (sometimes I want to run there and have the option to flying to another target -- or I run there knowing he'll do something to escape, and then I can fly to catch back up).
"Rocket Punch" -- punch target for a high damage, energy efficient, short range attack. This is not tactically interesting because if it's up, I want to do it. There is no case where I'd rather do some other attack if Rocket Punch is up.
In SWTOR, maybe (maybe!) 50% of the abilities are tactically interesting. The other 50% are not, but can still contribute to balance problems. It can also be a big factor in "perceived balance problems" because not everyone realizes that they should do Rocket Punch every time it's up, or they forget about using it, or they just plain lose track of it in their giant mass of assorted abilities.
In summary, I think simpler is better, but I don't think you can ever get away from balance issues.