17 Sep, 2007, Conner wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
I think we're arguing from different perspectives of the same side here, KaVir. I agree that if you don't have your classes balanced you'll find everyone shifting play to the overpowered class/race combo in the end, particularily for a primarily PVP crowd. But I don't cater to PVP as much as PVE in my world and don't want an exact balance like that, instead I try to keep my classes balanced and my races balanced, should someone stumble upon a particular class/race combo that works better than the others they still won't be that far out of balance but they might have a slight advantage in PVP, should they be among the smaller portion of my player base that chooses to play PK. Perhaps that's where are true disparity is stemming from, you're arguing from a pure PK perspective, I'm thinking from a mostly non-PK perspective.
17 Sep, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Perhaps that's where are true disparity is stemming from, you're arguing from a pure PK perspective, I'm thinking from a mostly non-PK perspective.


Well to be fair, I was directly responding to your comment "…balancing your world shouldn't be about making sure the only factor players really need to consider when engaging in PVP is lag either". PvP = player vs player = PK.

And yes, my arguments all along have been primarily from a PK perspective.
18 Sep, 2007, Conner wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Hmm, that should've been our, rather than are. *sigh*

Likewise, I've been trying to approach this from the PK perspective because I know that's where most of the posters so far have been coming from, but it's really challenging to take on a perspective I really don't share. Though I still stand by the notion that balance shouldn't reduce character opposition, even in PK, to strictly a matter of who suffers less lag. Though you had posited earlier that you'd rather be beaten by someone who'd spent more effort on their character or had better skills, etc.. but I'd wager that even you'd be unsatisfied if you lost a fight only because you got lagged but everything else was exactly balanced.
18 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
You're oversimplifying the issue. The results are one of the factors you should use to determine the relative strength of different classes. Relying purely on those results isn't the answer, but neither is ignoring them entirely.

Well, of course, this could be considered a factor. I'm simply arguing that it is a factor so unimportant that it shouldn't be considered much beyond a cursory check, due to all the problems balancing a game based on this can produce.

I'll expand more on this shortly, for now I have to run.
18 Sep, 2007, Conner wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I'll expand more on this shortly, for now I have to run.


Gotta wonder who's chasing him now… :lol:
18 Sep, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Likewise, I've been trying to approach this from the PK perspective because I know that's where most of the posters so far have been coming from, but it's really challenging to take on a perspective I really don't share.


I did also mention in an earlier post how such a balance is much less important for muds where the players are expected to work in groups (with the implication being that I was primarily talking about non-PK muds).

However, as I also pointed out, even then it's important that each class be enjoyable. I've seen muds where a cleric is pretty much essential for a group, yet the cleric ends up as little more than a spam-healing machine, and really isn't much fun to play. Arguably that's a separate issue, though.

Conner said:
Though I still stand by the notion that balance shouldn't reduce character opposition, even in PK, to strictly a matter of who suffers less lag.


Well no, obviously it shouldn't negate the value of player skill - that, in my opinion, should be the main deciding factor between two PCs of the equivilent power level when determining who should win.

Or to put it another way: If our characters are of the same level but of different classes, and I can beat you easily in a fight, then if we swap classes (assuming we're both equally familiar with both classes) I should still be able to beat you just as easily.

Conner said:
Though you had posited earlier that you'd rather be beaten by someone who'd spent more effort on their character or had better skills, etc.. but I'd wager that even you'd be unsatisfied if you lost a fight only because you got lagged but everything else was exactly balanced.


I would be annoyed about the lag, but I'd actually be very satisfied with the game balance, if I'd spend as much time and effort building my character and was an equally skilled player as my opponent (i.e., we were exactly evenly matched in every way, but had selected different classes).

DavidHaley said:
Well, of course, this could be considered a factor. I'm simply arguing that it is a factor so unimportant that it shouldn't be considered much beyond a cursory check, due to all the problems balancing a game based on this can produce.


Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, as I've found it to be a pretty useful way of comparing basic character builds against each other. Typically I do it with mobs though, to reduce the impact of player skill on the results - I create two mobs, each with a pre-made player build, and pit them against each other for several fights.

Obviously this doesn't work for all character builds, but it works pretty well for comparing two builds that fight in a similar way (for example, two melee-oriented character builds). As I said earlier, this should only be one part of balancing, as the fighting is under controlled conditions (and in my case, between mobs who don't take full advantage of their tactics) - however it's still provides a reasonable idea of raw comparable strength, which is a good start for balancing.
18 Sep, 2007, Vladaar wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
I have succeeded now in balancing hitpoint gains across the board for my dualclass, tripleclass, singleclass, and advanced races. Now am going through the process of balancing all weapons in the game. With oset setting level to automatically set the damage it does. Also, we are making mobs balanced throughout the game with mset level automatically setting the stats of the mobs. Of course we will have an override flag we can use on mobs and objects for quest items and such.

We may not be 100% balanced, but watching all these posts with admin addressing this issue, I'd say we will be one of the more balanced in power muds out there. Someone can choose a mage, psionic, cleric, demon, or whatever and not worry about being out of balance in power.

Thanks again,

Vladaar
18 Sep, 2007, Detah wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
I have never been to your mud.

You indicated that single classed players get a 1.8 multiplier to HP to 'make them balanced in power with triple classes'. Why is that necessary? Isnt the cost of triple classing triple that of single classes? Shouldnt it be? If the costs (mostly xp, I suppose) of triple classing are three times more than single classes, why shouldnt triple classes be three times more powerful (in every respect, including HP)? Several people have discussed several useful dimensions of the balance issue. I think you should also consider that the costs balancing with the benefits (abilities/skills/spells/powers) is equally as important as balancing across races/classes. Ceterus parabus, if the total cost to max out class X is less than the others, then more people will choose it.

Detah@Arcania
18 Sep, 2007, Vladaar wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
Detah said:
I have never been to your mud.

You indicated that single classed players get a 1.8 multiplier to HP to 'make them balanced in power with triple classes'. Why is that necessary? Isnt the cost of triple classing triple that of single classes?
Detah@Arcania


Well the multiplier has been adjusted from input of players, and we find that single. dual, and triple class having very close hp at avatar level is fine. Tripleclass puts in most cost, ie. work, but they get a butt-load of spells/skills to make up for that work. If they weren't adjusted to be balanced triple class would have 3 times hp at level 100, and since I have and encourage player killers, as well as peacefuls, everyone would just play tripleclass if they had 3 times hp and 3 times the skills/spells. The way I have it set now, is great. No complaints from players, cept when I first made the changes. They understand though it was done to balance the power for the game.

Vladaar
18 Sep, 2007, Detah wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
If your goal is to equalize maxHP by Avatar level, then I do not understand the point of your post. I thought you wanted input on how to balance maxHP for each class given that each class had varying abilities. I find nothing 'wrong' with aiming for equalization of maxHP for each class. But if that is the case, there is no need to discuss balance wrt HP.

I do not run a PK mud. So your interests are very different from mine and I can understand why maxHP may be more crucial to you than for non-PK muds. I just do not understand your question about balance, if you have already decided that at Level X, all classes will have maxHP=Y. Is your request for input about the distribution of maxHP? ie. one class advances maxHP early in their career relative to others, but ultimately each class ends up with the same maxHP.

great topic, btw.

Detah@Arcania
19 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Obviously this doesn't work for all character builds, but it works pretty well for comparing two builds that fight in a similar way (for example, two melee-oriented character builds).

Well, see, you've just changed the parameters. Of course it makes sense to test melee combat characters against each other in one-on-one melee combat. And of course that information is valuable for those specific cases. What I have been arguing against is that arena combat is a good way to test class strength in general, because this method only considers a very narrow portion of some class's activity spectrum. It is all but useless to test cleric vs. warrior in the arena if you are trying to make the classes 'balanced'.
19 Sep, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Well, see, you've just changed the parameters.


No, I'm just pointing out that you're still oversimplifying the issue. You claimed that "it is a factor so unimportant that it shouldn't be considered much beyond a cursory check". I'm pointing out that the results can in fact be a useful factor for determining the relative strength of different classes.

In my mud, it's possible to create a melee-oriented build with any class - just as you could create a spellcaster build or ranged-combat build with any class. Thus I could quite legitimately test all of the classes against each other in the manner I described previously (although as I've said before, it's still only a rough indicator of balance, because the mobs don't use clever tactics).
19 Sep, 2007, kiasyn wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
(although as I've said before, it's still only a rough indicator of balance, because the mobs don't use clever tactics).


speak for yourself >_>
20 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
I still claim it's not a terribly important factor, because you are focusing too strongly on one-on-one melee combat. Now if one-on-one melee combat holds a very strong position in your game, then fine, it makes sense to balance for just that. This is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you: I'm just saying that from my perspective, it is really, really not interesting to balance only for arena combat, and in fact I have seen doing such balancing ruin the fun of having different classes.

It seems to me, though, that on one point at least we are vehemently agreeing: given certain conditions, obviously it can be used as a factor. I think the disagreement lies in which conditions we would like to impose upon the system…
20 Sep, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I still claim it's not a terribly important factor, because you are focusing too strongly on one-on-one melee combat. Now if one-on-one melee combat holds a very strong position in your game, then fine, it makes sense to balance for just that. This is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you: I'm just saying that from my perspective, it is really, really not interesting to balance only for arena combat, and in fact I have seen doing such balancing ruin the fun of having different classes.


Emphasis mine. You're still over-simplifying the issue, and balancing classes is anything but simple. The following are quotes from three of my previous posts - pay particular attention to the parts in bold:

"It's not a bad first step for balancing classes, as long as it is just the first step."

"The results are one of the factors you should use to determine the relative strength of different classes. Relying purely on those results isn't the answer, but neither is ignoring them entirely."

"…this should only be one part of balancing, as the fighting is under controlled conditions (and in my case, between mobs who don't take full advantage of their tactics) - however it's still provides a reasonable idea of raw comparable strength, which is a good start for balancing."

At no point have I suggested you should "balance only for arena combat" - in fact I've specifically said you shouldn't do that.

DavidHaley said:
It seems to me, though, that on one point at least we are vehemently agreeing: given certain conditions, obviously it can be used as a factor. I think the disagreement lies in which conditions we would like to impose upon the system…


The disagreement is that I feel it is almost always a factor, but that it should only be one of the factors taken into account. You seem to be looking at it from an "all or nothing" perspective, whereby you either balance the classes based purely on arena fights, or you don't use arena fights at all.

As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the importance of class balance increases the more you emphasise solo (rather than group-oriented) gameplay and competitive activities (such as PK). However the purpose behind testing isn't to choose the capabilities of each class - it's to ensure that those capabilities are in line with the intended design. To that end you should use a variety of different techniques to test the class capabilities in a variety of different situations. Direct one-on-one arena fights are the hammer in your testing toolbox; not every problem is a nail, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.
20 Sep, 2007, Vladaar wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Another thing we are implementing that I think will help our balance…..

We are taking damage done by skills/spells, and defining them.

low - number_range( 5, 15 )
medium - number_range( 10, 25 )

Just a example not what we are using. However, we can then say if the spell/skill is successful damage = low.
Thus it is a whole lot easier to check balance of spells/skills damage. Instead seeing piles of formulas.
Since my coder and I both create custom spells/skills it allows us to be on same sheet of music, with balance
for determining damage.

We are also taking it a step further and making it so you can use sset <skill> damage low
Thus any stock skills/spells that we still have can be balanced easier as well. Though we will replace
the remaining stock spells/skills we have soon.

Just another idea for balancing power in the game, we are implementing.

Vladaar
20 Sep, 2007, Kayle wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
Vladaar said:
low - number_range( 5, 15 )
medium - number_range( 10, 25 )

Just a example not what we are using. However, we can then say if the spell/skill is successful damage = low.
Thus it is a whole lot easier to check balance of spells/skills damage. Instead seeing piles of formulas.
Since my coder and I both create custom spells/skills it allows us to be on same sheet of music, with balance
for determining damage.


By doing this, you're limiting what little flexibility the Dice setup offers. While that not be exactly what you're doing, consider for a moment, that by making damage formulas that are just straight up 6d6(min of 6, max of 36) You lose all flexibility of being able to do something like: ((5D11)D(ID2)) where the actual amount of damage is dependent entirely on the characters intelligence. For example with an Intelligence of 14 (we'll call it an average int), This could come out to anywhere from 5D14 to 55D28. All just based on their intelligence. Skills and spells, in my eyes, should always have a dynamic amount of damage based on different stats, because if they don't, everyone does the same amount of damage, they're just doing it with a different name. And that's not truly what would happen in a game such as D&D.

Just my thoughts.
20 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Emphasis mine. You're still over-simplifying the issue, and balancing classes is anything but simple. The following are quotes from three of my previous posts - pay particular attention to the parts in bold:

"It's not a bad first step for balancing classes, as long as it is just the first step."

"The results are one of the factors you should use to determine the relative strength of different classes. Relying purely on those results isn't the answer, but neither is ignoring them entirely."

"…this should only be one part of balancing, as the fighting is under controlled conditions (and in my case, between mobs who don't take full advantage of their tactics) - however it's still provides a reasonable idea of raw comparable strength, which is a good start for balancing."

At no point have I suggested you should "balance only for arena combat" - in fact I've specifically said you shouldn't do that.


You will note that in all those cases, you never mentioned that it was for melee classes that you were doing these tests. I vigorously maintain that arena combat is not a good idea for balancing classes in general, and that is the point I was trying to make. I have already agreed that it's a great thing for certain kinds of classes. If you feel I am oversimplifying, I feel you are being sloppy and imprecise and accusing me of oversimplifying the idea you have given me, where the idea you gave me is only a straw man of what you are actually thinking. How am I supposed to discuss the idea properly without simplifying if the only version you give me for several posts is flawed and incomplete? :wink:

KaVir said:
The disagreement is that I feel it is almost always a factor, but that it should only be one of the factors taken into account. You seem to be looking at it from an "all or nothing" perspective, whereby you either balance the classes based purely on arena fights, or you don't use arena fights at all.

I believe I already agreed that it was a very useful factor in testing for melee classes. I also said it's basically useless for other classes. I would hardly call that 'all or nothing', but perhaps that is just a question of scope… And incidentally, while I have indeed suggested that in some cases it shouldn't be used at all, I never suggested that in other cases, arena combat is all that should be used. Pot, kettle, black when it comes to oversimplification. :wink:
20 Sep, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
You will note that in all those cases, you never mentioned that it was for melee classes that you were doing these tests.


It's not - it's for all classes. The melee build was just an example, when I stated "…it works pretty well for comparing two builds that fight in a similar way (for example, two melee-oriented character builds)". However as I later pointed out, "In my mud, it's possible to create a melee-oriented build with any class - just as you could create a spellcaster build or ranged-combat build with any class."

DavidHaley said:
I believe I already agreed that it was a very useful factor in testing for melee classes. I also said it's basically useless for other classes. I would hardly call that 'all or nothing', but perhaps that is just a question of scope… And incidentally, while I have indeed suggested that in some cases it shouldn't be used at all, I never suggested that in other cases, arena combat is all that should be used.


I was referring to your comment "I'm just saying that from my perspective, it is really, really not interesting to balance only for arena combat, and in fact I have seen doing such balancing ruin the fun of having different classes."
20 Sep, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
It's not - it's for all classes. The melee build was just an example, when I stated "…it works pretty well for comparing two builds that fight in a similar way (for example, two melee-oriented character builds)". However as I later pointed out, "In my mud, it's possible to create a melee-oriented build with any class - just as you could create a spellcaster build or ranged-combat build with any class."

Yes, well, like I said, how am I supposed to react to your statements when you leave out details like that? Obviously by now many things have been cleared up, but earlier, during what got us started on this, there were significant discrepancies between what you were telling me and what you had in mind, so clearly you thought I was oversimplifying because I was replying to an oversimplified version of what you were thinking.

KaVir said:
I was referring to your comment "I'm just saying that from my perspective, it is really, really not interesting to balance only for arena combat, and in fact I have seen doing such balancing ruin the fun of having different classes."

I'm not sure how this comment implies that I advocate an 'all or nothing' approach when it comes to using arena combat for balancing.
20.0/49