Vanguard - Brad posts about balancing the classes (HELLA LONG)

[Braen]

http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/sh...460#post320460

Great points, and you've given me an opportunity and opening to hopefully allay some fears by not just specifically addressing what you posted, but by also making more general statements and examples. Thank you.

We do and have stated often that we want to make a better game. We want to fix some areas where we either made errors or underestimated things. We want to use more effort to stay true to our vision in certain areas (doing dungeons vs. camping, for example), we want to do a better job balancing, and we want to move the genre forward with innovation (perception, diplomacy, etc).

But let me focus in on one of my statements there: "we want to do a better job balancing". This is indeed one of the reasons behind the job system. We think such a system will help our designers strike the right balance between diversity and usefulness. We want to avoid the situation, usually towards the end game, where some classes aren't wanted in groups, or the generalist vs. specialist problem.

So, yes, balance is very important to us, and always has been.

But we're also VERY aware of two important things: 1. you can never achieve true balance (we're just human, balance is somewhat subjective to the playerbase, these games evolve and change (moving target), etc and 2. While fun and relative balance often go hand in hand, if you have a situation where one has to 'win', we will choose fun.

I think perhaps some posters have thought that many of our changes and ideas that are more controversial or more often debated stem from a desire to 'fix' issues of the past in order to achieve a better balanced game. But this is not always the case. Sometimes, and perhaps more often, they're there to hopefully both make a better and more fun experience for the players and to also make it more possible to achieve our vision or goals where we feel we fell short (or even abjectly failed) in the past. The encounter system is a good example. We never wanted camping in EQ 1, but we screwed up and created systems and mechanics where camping was the better or more efficient way for the player to achieve (in this case, to obtain the item they wanted). We've always wanted players to 'do' dungeons because that's what we experienced in better MUDs and other earlier online games and it was FUN.

The 'fitting classes into jobs' is much the same. Our primary goal isn’t to create a perfect, balanced class system; indeed, by choosing a class system for Vanguard, we knew going in that no matter what, some players would perceive (right or wrongly -- doesn't matter) that one class was inferior to another. We know there will be complaints like this, and we know that sometimes we won't be able to address those complaints. Likewise, when we do enhance or nerf a class, even if it turns out to be the right decision long term (and lets hope that doesn't happen often, and that we are usually right) that such decisions will piss some people off, no matter what.

My point here is that our motives are not solely or over focused on perfect balance but rather on making the game more fun and rewarding. Specifically, as an example, avoiding the specialist/generalist problem isn't about balance it's about being inclusionary instead of exclusionary such that players will have fun and be wanted regardless of the class they choose.

Now you might respond to this asserting that I'm just splitting hairs and that's it's really all the same thing. But it's really not. Similar tools can be used to make things both more balanced and more fun, but it's how far you go with those tools that makes the difference. If we go too far towards 'fairness' and balance we know very well that things will backfire, and that we'll end up with such draconian rules and restrictions that players will actually have less fun. And we know this both intuitively and because we've seen it happen. That's why I keep asserting that our goal is to strike a happy medium, creating classes that are distinct and that play differently enough that they are truly different experiences. We know, taken too far, that forcing classes into archetypes, while easier to balance, also creates a game where the classes are shallow and their differences ultimately meaningless, merely flavor that the player sees through very quickly. Let may say something rather boldly: we think if too much perfection is sought after, that even if more perfection and balance is achieved, the player will end up having a less fun experience than if things were looser and less balanced. Add we know some players will flame and complain no matter what. So taking this too far wouldn't gain us anything. We'd still have complaints that classes were not balanced, but then we'd have a different set of people complaining that, say, a fighter is so similar to a paladin that you might as well have not made two different classes. Lose-Lose.

I hope that makes sense. Again, it's all about intent. If we go in with many of these ideas with the intent of making a game more fun and less frustrating rather than trying to achieve perfect balance, then we're much less likely to screw up and take our ideas too far.

The same goes for so many other issues we're trying to address. Do we want to curb some twinking? Yes, but not eliminate it, because there are aspects of twinking that are not only fun, but promote replayability. Are we against kiting? Only kiting that is so much more efficient that other methods of advancement that players not kiting are having less fun. Are we so against teleportation no matter what that we'd never have anything resembling it even if it turned out that if we did, the game would be more fun? No. Are we so against Instancing that we'll make sure nothing in Vanguard even looked like a form of instancing at all? No. In fact, some people have noted that our advanced encounter system and golden mob ideas are a form of instancing to some degree (I’m not sure if I agree, and it depends on definitions of course – taken to the extreme, shards are a form on instancing). What we don't want is the more extreme and common form on Instancing that separates people, hurts community, and makes it feel like you're no longer playing in a shared, virtual world. Is MUDflation bad? It certainly can be, its rate must be controlled and monitored, and it has negative ramifications no matter what. But are we gong to try to eliminate it completely? No, because that typically ends up doing even more harm to the game. Another example is choosing level limits, but soft ones and not hard ones, because while hard level limits do indeed solve problems, they also almost always do more harm than good. I could probably go on and on.

But the point here is that many of the more controversial systems that we've revealed (and, in hindsight, I somewhat regret even revealing the job system, but I digress) have to be used correctly, with the right intent, and rarely if ever to the extreme. If one tries to fix and balance and make a 'perfect' MMOG one usually ends up with a very dry, restrictive, bland, and even sometimes linear MMOG. We know this and it's never been our goal to try to make a game like that.

Extremes are usually bad. No balance, no challenge, total freedom, no rules, etc. and you end up with a Monty Haul game that may be fun for a short time, but also where people receive little if any sense of accomplishment, attachment to their characters and friends, and then of course end up leaving quickly (e.g. very bad for retention). Conversely, trying to achieve perfect balance and putting in place draconian rules in order to insure that everything is perfectly fair and you end up with a game that doesn't feel like a world. You don't have that feeling you can go and do what you want. You do feel like if you don't play exactly as the designers wanted that you are penalized. You find that in such an extreme attempt to achieve balance, that many variables were eliminated in order to make such a goal achievable, and so the game is shallow, options illusionary, and that more or all experiences, solutions, etc. feel like they ought to be overcome using the same methods. In summary, neither Monty Haul nor Utopia makes for a good MMOG – neither extreme is a good goal. (Quick side note on how the pendulum really swings over time – when promoting and interacting with EQ 1 players, early on, I’d often find myself defending rules that some thought were too strict and trying to explain why Monty Haul MMOGs were not really want they wanted, and certainly wouldn’t create the retention necessary to support a subscription based revenue model. Now, ironically, given more recent trends, I find myself more often trying to explain and convince that we also know the other extreme is just as bad as well).

We have to know what our target audience finds fun. We then have to make sure that our game mechanics don't reduce that fun in order to achieve ideological goals. If we are more strict in some areas (and we will be), the onus is on us to make sure we don't take things too far and place our objectives as more important than enjoyment. If we use tools to make things easier and more efficient to design, implement, balance, etc., we have to make sure that they don't suck the fun from the game as a byproduct. A perfect example of that would be completely algorithmically generating items employing strict point pools and the like with the goal of never dropping an item that is more powerful than it should be, given the target audience (level range) of the area. Again, I'd rather be flamed that one region is more lucrative than another and then try to address that (yielding probably more flames), than create systems that populate the world with items so 'perfectly' that they lose all personality, flavor, etc. and were obviously made by a machine and not hand crafted.

In fact, I'll go ahead and say that some imperfections are actually good. Some imbalance is actually good. Having one region more lucrative than other for a while and then switching things around can sometimes be good. Screwing up and, say, having more situational areas involve undead, therefore making the paladin a better choice in more areas, is obviously not preferable. But we're not going to create a class/job system that is so strict and homogenous that something like that could never occur. No, the price for 'perfection' is too high. Implementing systems with the goal of perfection as opposed to fun doesn't necessarily mean your system is bad, but it certainly means your goal was bad.

Anyway, I've gone on and on, and tried to use a ton of examples and analogies. I did this to hopefully be as clear about our intent and understanding of the dangers that are out there as possible. And I certainly wanted to drive home the point that if we're forced into a situation where it's a. better balance or b. more fun, that we'll choose b. Yes, optimally and in most cases, balance = fun, because screwed up balance makes for a bad game, especially long term. And yes, this will involve some tough decisions, especially after launch, where we may end up nerfing something that appears on the surface to be fun, or cool new emergent gameplay. But we'd do that only if we felt that letting it go would hurt the long term health of the game and therefore the ‘fun’ as a whole. That's the right motivation when tough decisions have to be made, not placing balance in and of itself up on a holy pedestal and submitting to it at all costs.

In closing, I want to emphasize that there was no secondary motive in this posting, like attacking other games that may have made some of these errors. (I need to be really careful about that, because it’s simply not cool – that said, players will rightfully compare game a to game b and so sometimes you have to dance on the razor’s edge, so to speak) It's simply that people are legitimately concerned when they see similar ideas or tools brought up that our goals in terms of using those tools and ideas may be the same as they've seen in the past, and that we might go too far, might sacrifice too much at the altar of perfection in using them. And while I'd never promise that we won't overreact or take something too far in the wrong direction (because we will screw things up, no matter how experienced we are), I will promise that at least the motivation behind a scenario like that will be based on trying to make the game more fun as opposed to more perfect.

Again, for you skeptics out there, the proof will be in the pudding. Beta and release will show if we truly understand this or if I’m just some overpaid PR guy

[Elgonn]

Another eloquent long-winded post that actually says nothing.

You might as well ignore all V:SoH posts and info until beta.

[Malvesti]

Yeah. He forgot to say anything.

[Duppin]

Basically, the only thing I get out of this is that Vanguard will be yet another game where there won't be enough of a downside to playing a hybrid class, because people want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Suineg]

Well I did grab a few things out of this horridly long-winded nothingness.

Classes will not be balanced and they are embracing that. (maybe there will be noone caring about PvP since it will be right up fron that the classes will not be balanced)

Instancing is lame. Though I can see where some people get the idea of their unique encounter system can be compared in certain points to instancing. (Thanks Brad)

[Jedite]

WOW. I have to point this out, because even though its a good read I found this extremly amusing.

brad wrote:

"Screwing up and, say, having more situational areas involve undead, therefore making the paladin a better choice in more areas, is obviously not preferable"

anyone else find that quote funny? =p

Having Brad say Paladin and "a better choice" in the same sentence is something I would never think brad would say. Specially given the condition that Verant left Paladins in EQ1 pre luclin hehe.


Hope you get Paladins right this time brad, we have been bent over in every MMO. But then again, ill be a sucker again and play a paladin as I did in EQ1 for 5 years and every other Fantasy MMO.

[Mkopec1]

Its funny how he mentions how in EQ "camping" was never the way they wanted the game to play out.

But at the same time they designed dungeons which usually had such drastic level gaps in them there was no way for even a Uber group in the level range to "do" a dungeon.

WTF did they think was gonna happen? A group of 5 Lv 40's "doing" SolB from top to bottomn?

Fuck, just look at the noob dungeon Blackburrow....

The level range in there was what? Lv7-16?

Now how is a group, other than like lv 16 gonna do the dungeon from top to bottomn? And even then kill an ass load of greens to get to the exp.

I call this bullshit about camping. It does not take a genious to figure out that if you want people to "do" the dungeons, they have to be designed to be "doable" LOLZ

[Eonan]

I would agree...I wouldnt read too much into anything about V:SOH until it beta's.

[Jooka]

seeing the word vision in this thread makes me cry. cry from memories long ago, when the vision was always better than the players feedback. yet now(many years later), he's saying , yup we fucked up on that one, but yet theres that word again, vision.

[Taggle]

Originally Posted by Jooka

seeing the word vision in this thread makes me cry. cry from memories long ago, when the vision was always better than the players feedback.

The vision isn't some magical insight into MMOGs. The best way to describe it is that the vision is that which allows good designers to resist short sighted suggestions made by retards that do not really understand what makes these games fun.

Then and now.

[Creediki]

You guys are half right....

Originally Posted by Braen

I hope that makes sense. Again, it's all about intent. If we go in with many of these ideas with the intent of making a game more fun and less frustrating rather than trying to achieve perfect balance, then we're much less likely to screw up and take our ideas too far.

... He did say something. He said they don't have any concrete plans to not fuck up. They're just winging it with good intentions.

So far my estimation of Vanguard is that Brad is very good at bullshit, drives a nice car, and once accidentally created a fun game.

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by Taggle

The vision isn't some magical insight into MMOGs. The best way to describe it is that the vision is that which allows good designers to resist short sighted suggestions made by retards that do not really understand what makes these games fun.

Then and now.

You may want to rephrase how you put this, although I think your basic point is solid.

Players tend to generally have a good idea as to what makes these games fun, because they can tell whether they're having fun or not; what any "vision" you have is there for is to tell whether what makes things fun is going to cause problems within the greater context of how your game is built.

[Andric d'Regor]

seems to be saying pretty much what most other designers say just in a long winded way.

Will see how its implemented before getting that interested - though if he hasn't learnt the lessons of the joke of balancing that was kunark then there will be real problems.

[Etadanik]

Originally Posted by Mkopec1

Its funny how he mentions how in EQ "camping" was never the way they wanted the game to play out.

But at the same time they designed dungeons which usually had such drastic level gaps in them there was no way for even a Uber group in the level range to "do" a dungeon.

WTF did they think was gonna happen? A group of 5 Lv 40's "doing" SolB from top to bottomn?

Fuck, just look at the noob dungeon Blackburrow....

The level range in there was what? Lv7-16?

Now how is a group, other than like lv 16 gonna do the dungeon from top to bottomn? And even then kill an ass load of greens to get to the exp.

I call this bullshit about camping. It does not take a genious to figure out that if you want people to "do" the dungeons, they have to be designed to be "doable" LOLZ

Brad clearly screwed up, but the idea isn't completely unfounded. As I recall, he did say he was trying to convert MUDs to 3D.

In MUDs such a situation would be resolved by simply doing the parts of the dungeon that you could do, clearing it, and then moving on to another zone, or, if you prefer, running through the same zone's level ranged areas again. The issue comes up only when translated to EQ because the zones are set to fast respawn timers to accomodate more people. In a typical leveling MUD, the zone would either not respawn for a day or two, or be set to not reload the equipment until the next "reboot", or you'd have a "trophy list" wherein the more times you killed the same creature the less exp you'd get from it. None of these things would work in a MMORPG with thousands of concurrent players and yet only 2-3 level-ranged dungeons. But that, like pulling (which was possible in MUDs but nowhere nearly as efficient as going room to room, simply because the "geometry" was much less exploitable), got lost in translation.

[Taggle]

Originally Posted by Duppin

Players tend to generally have a good idea as to what makes these games fun.

No.

Originally Posted by Duppin

they can tell whether they're having fun or not.

Yes.

The difference between the two is huge.

More of the players on this particular forum get it, simply because they have more experience with a wide variety of situations and different games. That doesn't mean that players in general know what makes the games fun. I would argue the exact opposite. Even some here don't.

The typical player thinks: "CR sucks." Armchair designers (some of which happen to get placed on design teams of real games) agree and remove CRs. A month later, the typical player gets bored with the game and quits, without any fanfaire, simply because without the sting of defeat, there is no thrill to victory.

The Armchair designer sits around with his dick in his hand wondering where he went wrong.

The answer is because he thought a player not having fun in one particular moment was a problem, and fixed it. He lacked vision.

The vision is simply keeping the long term, collective health of the game in mind in every single decision you make, sometimes, even in the face of unending criticism hitting you in the face.

IMO, Blizzard is also showing substantial vision. The easiest thing in the world to do would be to release some piece of shit raid content for the folks here to chew on. Certainly the mid 50s content they added in the last patch could have easilly been some interesting raid mobs. They dont, because they have it in their heads what type of game they want to make, and they wont cave in to the folks here (and at other hard core centric places) because, quite frankly, World of Warcraft is not being made for your audience.