FOTM and Choice Making

Redfang

Cadet
Some games are very good about allowing you to choose multiple classes and to select from multiple skill trees - at least, on paper they are good about that. But then the Devs evaluate the choices you make and swing the nerf bat repeatedly to ensure your choices aren't "too" good. I HATE that. If I make thoughtful choices I want to reap the rewards of doing so, and if I make less optimal or even silly choices I accept the consequences.

Let me give you an example from my closet of mmo pain. I beta tested SWG and played it at launch. When the game went live I chose two professions. At the time neither were considered very good classes. However, I had a plan. I had studied their skills, abilities, etc. and could see that at master levels, each class perfectly compensated for the other's weakness. Plus they had stacking abilities. Plus those abilities offset the other's vulnerabilities/limitations. The down side was that prior to master level they were pretty gimp. :blink: Nevertheless, I went that route.

Leveling was slooooow with that combo. I watched as player after player with more standard choices blew past me in levels, and beat me like a tied down circus monkey in PvP. But I had a plan and I stuck to it, suffering through all of that. At long last I became a double master (triple actually though one was a lower tier profession) and whoah nelly, was I right. My guy was wicked lethal at range, wicked lethal up close, and was hard as hell to kill. I started to excel in PvP (Master Bounty hunters were no problem and even some Jedi), and rarely died in PvE. Life was good. My long wait had been rewarded and my careful plan was paying dividends.

Do I even have to say what $OE did next? Yet. They nerfed total hell out of that combination. Fortunately my character never felt the bite of that nerf because I quit the game as soon as I learned of their intentions. But from friends I heard how drastic it was afterwards.

So on to my question. HJ promotes choice making and offers a huge number of choices. Will fear of there being a Flavor of the Month Build lead them to punish players who make good choices, as so many other games have done? Or will you allow each combinations/build to reap its maximum benefit, even if that isn't the same for each? If I put a lot of thought into my selections, can I benefit from that or will the great equalizer nerf bat give me the beat down?
 
The difficulty in making an MMORPG is not making any one class or combination too powerful. All players should be roughly equal in terms of power on paper. True greatness must come from how the player uses their abilities. Strategy. Tactics.

Different classes (in HJ's case, profession combinations) should present players with a variety of choices in how they want to play, not how powerful they will become.
 
I concur. If you put in the time, thought, and effort to turn a gimp into a pimp you should reap the rewards of your long painful labor. You earned that power fair and square. I also agree that such nerfings really do punish good decision making. I could go on for days about this.
 
Originally posted by Riceman@May 22 2006, 01:11 PM
The difficulty in making an MMORPG is not making any one class or combination too powerful. All players should be roughly equal in terms of power on paper. True greatness must come from how the player uses their abilities. Strategy. Tactics.

Different classes (in HJ's case, profession combinations) should present players with a variety of choices in how they want to play, not how powerful they will become.
I could not disagree more in this context. Here is why.

In a game like Everquest 1, where you have cookie cutter classes and little choice over your abilities (i.e. all wizards get the same spells assuming they go and obtain what is available), I would agree with you. I understand the concept of "balance" in a game like that. Of course, because the classes function differently it's a rough balance; i.e., one class may excel in one situation and not another, play one role well and not another, or be good in PvP against one class but not as good against another. I have played many mmos and I understand that.

But if you are going to promote customization and choice making, it is illusory and meaningless if you can simply throw a dart at the class and skill trees and achieve pretty much the same outcome because the developer makes sure that all choices are ultimately more or less the same. If we aren't going to have real choice making and customization, let's not promote that we do?

I read an article on a fansite about how in HJ you can actually gimp yourself by your choice making. My heart lept for joy. Finally maybe there will be a game where my choices matter. ;)

In games like these, designing a custom character is one of the most satisfying elements of the game. That's why I gravitate to games where I don't have to follow a connect the dots path. My character is a function of my decisons. I truely hope that HJ will deliver on its promise of customization and choice making by making a game where those choices have consequences instead of merely solving for x.
 
The difficulty in making an MMORPG is not making any one class or combination too powerful. All players should be roughly equal in terms of power on paper.

That's not completely true Riceman, it really depends on your focus for the game.

If you're going to have PvP, especially one on on, and make it an intregal part of the gameplay then, yes, the class combos need to be fairly balanced with respect to one another. However, if your PvP is intended to be group vs group or if PvP isn't an intregal part of your game then your goal isn't so much equal power but equal usefulness. In other words every class combo should bring something to the table to make them attractive to play.

Different classes (in HJ's case, profession combinations) should present players with a variety of choices in how they want to play, not how powerful they will become.

That I agree with 100%.

One thing to remember when you're playing these games is that the devs don't swing the nerfbat just to keep you down. They have to make these decisions for the long term good of the game. The players out number the dev team and testers by at least 100 to 1 in most cases so will find ways of using their characters that no one thought of, ways that actually break the game for a lot of other players. These things have to be fixed even if it means that those of you that figured out how to make these uber powerful characters get upset.

In the example given, the devs view for the game, and the lore of the world the game was set in, say that Jedi are the most powerful force in the world (or at least they were thought to be apparently it's fairly easy for a batch of Stormtroopers to just shoot them in the back but that's a different story). A close second would have been the bounty hunters but only the very best of them. To come up with another combination that could easily take on a master bounty hunter and even give a Jedi a good fight was broken and needed to be fixed to protect the integrity of the world.

If had just been one person that, through luck and careful analysis, put together that combination and suffered through the lower levels then they could have left it alone. The problem is once someone does it you get everyone jumping on the bandwagon and your game ends up broken.

As for HJ, we're not talking about PvP right now and though I know there is a plan for how it will work I'm not privy to that information. I do know we're trying to make sure that all of the class combinations are viable in the PvE environment. That doesn't mean that you'll be able to solo any combo but it does mean that every combo should bring something useful to a group situation though, obiviously, some will be more group friendly than others.
 
Well, I would argue that Raph Koster's hardwired vision of Jedi and Bounty Hunters was misguided both from a game perspective and according to the story itself. If Jedi are as powerful as he envisioned, who hunted them to virtual extinction?

There was no pre-fabricated template in the storyline for "bounty hunter." These were all sorts of people who used all sorts of ways to hunt their targets (in other words, people making choices). Having a little label over your head that says you are a bounty hunter shouldn't make you one - you are a bounty hunter if you have the guts, skill and guile to do that type of work. Being a Jedi doesn't mean you can defeat all comers either - just ask all the dead Jedi.

I would really like to see a gamemaker (if not this one than someone) get away from the same, tired, notions of labels and "balance" and let players create characters that thrive or perish based partly (though not exclusively) on how they design those characters.

After all, we reward levels. All else being equal, a level 20 character can kill a level 20 mob a lot easier than a level 15 character.

We reward items. All else being equal, a well equipped character can kill a mob a lot easier than a poorly equipped one.

We reward tactics. All else being equal, a player using good tactics in combat will do better than a player who doesn't. A team using good teamwork will do better than one that doesn't.

Put them together and a well equipped level 20 character using good tactics can kill a level 20 mob a TON easier than a poorly equipped level 15 character using bad tactics.

Do these things break the game? Should we nerf them?

Why should we single out class design and skill selection and penalize thinking in that context only? All those other discrepancies are Kosher, and even the combination of them is Kosher, but if a player excels in part because he choses a good class/skill combination than we suddenly have a broken game? I disagree.
 
Originally posted by Redfang@May 22 2006, 03:02 PM

After all, we reward levels. All else being equal, a level 20 character can kill a level 20 mob a lot easier than a level 15 character.

We reward items. All else being equal, a well equipped character can kill a mob a lot easier than a poorly equipped one.

We reward tactics. All else being equal, a player using good tactics in combat will do better than a player who doesn't. A team using good teamwork will do better than one that doesn't.

Put them together and a well equipped level 20 character using good tactics can kill a level 20 mob a TON easier than a poorly equipped level 15 character using bad tactics.

I really dislike the level system, because it does not reward skill, just the fact that someone plays 16+hours a day. I don't know if that is such a good thing to reward. It's those guys that go through "content" and bring the nerfs to the game anyway, mostly throught their constant bitching.

I love how HJ is getting away from items. Once again I don't think your character should be defined by what he/she wears. It (as does the level system) rewards powergamers.

I agree on rewarding tactics however. But in most cases class/gear>tactics. I hope that HJ reverses that.
 
Well, I would argue that Raph Koster's hardwired vision of Jedi and Bounty Hunters was misguided both from a game perspective and according to the story itself. If Jedi are as powerful as he envisioned, who hunted them to virtual extinction?

Actually I think the vision for bounty hunters and Jedi came from Lucas, they had a lot more input on those aspects of the game than most people realize. I do agree that the vision was flawed but that's a different topic completely.

As for gear, levels and tactics, they get nerfed all the time. So yes, they break the game at times and yes they should be nerfed.

The example of a class design given didn't break the game JUST because you could kill Jedi and bounty hunters. I'm willing to bet that they decided it broke the game because it was an ultimate character build (if you're a D&D player you might know about Pun Pun) . If you allow one build to be that much more powerful than any other build then everyone will become one.

So you either weaken that build or you start tailoring your content to that build which in turn makes every other build even weaker and makes more people either switch to the new uber build or leave the game.

Why should we single out class design and skill selection and penalize thinking in that context only? All those other discrepancies are Kosher, and even the combination of them is Kosher, but if a player excels in part because he choses a good class/skill combination than we suddenly have a broken game? I disagree.

All those other descrepncies are kosher because they should be based on a level/gear centric game design. But then you didn't mention that in a skills/level centric game a well thought out level 20 build will also do much better than a poorly planned level 15. That's kosher too. In such a system it would also be kosher, at least in my opinion, for a well planned level 15 build to be at least as powerful as a poorly planned level 20. Just as in a gear/level system a well geared level 15 can equal a poorly geared level 20.

The problem occurs, and the nerfbat has to come out, when you get 2 equally geared, level 20's using the same tactics and one of them is obviously more powerful. Now obviously this applies when you're comparing similar aspects of game play, say two "tank" classes. Comparing the "power" of, say, tanks to healers is similar but different and requires a lot more analysis.
 
Maybe we aren't so far apart in our views, but just looking at it from two different directions. Let me use a small example.

Suppose as a warrior or gearknight I carry a shield. Let's say I have choices about what I can do, skillwise, with that shield.

I can improve my skill at using it for defense.
I can improve my skill at knocking an opponent to the ground.
I can improve my skill at stunning my adversary.
And 5 other things I am too lazy to make up for this hypothetical.

Let's put that aside for a moment and come back to it.

So now I am shopping for a secondary class. Let's say I notice that as a bard I have an aoe aura that causes me to do a lot of extra damage to opponents that are knocked to the ground.

So I, thinking ahead to what combat would look like, put two and two together. I realize that hey, if I take the skill that knocks foes to the ground, and I select an aura that gives me lots of extra damage to foes that are on the ground, these two compliment each other and I could kick some arse that way. :smiley:

So, I make a warrior/bard and select those skills, looking forward to the day when they will harmonize to my advantage.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Player B picks warrior/rogue just because he thinks that sounds cool without giving any thought to whether those classes compliment each other, or whether their skills do, or how.

Time passes and I max out my skills at knocking foes down and whomping them while I have this aura on. It's doing great. I'm not invincible or anything, but I am certainly doing some impressive damage. Player B comes along, sees that, and says "gee you are overpowered."

Is Player B right? Or did I just use good judgement in selecting classes and skills that go well together. Should I be nerfed because of that?

Maybe that's not what you are saying. Maybe you are saying that no, there's nothing wrong with that, but at the same time there should be some combination of skills in the warrior/rogue combination that Player B could choose that would also allow Player B to do comparable damage (provided he makes good choices and uses good tactics for his situation). Warrior/rogue thus would not be intrinsically gimped. There would be good choices and less good choices within that combination. Good choices would be equal to good choices in warrior/bard. Bad choices would be as bad as bad choices for warrior/bard. But you still have to put the thought in and find what works.
 
>Sits back in his rocking chair, lites his pipe, adjusts his glasses and looks at the young'uns gathered about him and starts waxing philosophicly about days gone by<

Ok, I am going to TRY to keep this one short (stop snickering, you in the back!) and just site an example from the good ole' days to make my point.

Way back when the primary input device for any computer was a piece of stone with a chisel and hammer, we had a game called "Everquest", and it was a nice RP community that a lot of people enjoyed.

Then one day, within that community, some people (those evil bastards!) realized that their class enabled them to go to (what should have been) a very dangerous area, solo, summon a pet, and just go afk (to bed, work, what have you) letting their pet do all the work while the character just laid there in feign death mode so as not to be attacked. That player could let this go on for 8-12 hours at a time unsupervised and come back many levels and many Platinum richer.

When it was discovered outside that class' secret society what they were doing, the cry from the unwashed masses went up that the class was "way overpowered" and "horifficly (no pun intended towards the necromancers) abusive".

Then the dreaded word came forth... and someone said "This class is unbalanced!" (dramatic music here!).

And what did the mighty gods of $OE do at this point? Did they correct the spawn strength? (No, the Spawn was the right intended strength for the zone) Did they randomized the pathing or aggro of the mobs in that area (nahh... to prohibitive to redo such programming). Did they adjust the skills involved, such as placing a finite timer on Feign Death or a declining health meter on the pet, necesitating player upkeep to keep the pet going? (No, but dont ask me why not...)

The answer my friend, is blown' in the wind... er, sorry... The answer is no. Instead of taking the reasonable route of fixing the server side aspects, they tryed to fix the symptom of the very vocal few who were crying about "game balance" and nerfed the HELL out of the class.

Then, lo and behold, just as the newborn baby learns that when she cryes, momma comes running, Everyone learned that if they bitch long enough and loud enough, that $oe would "fix imbalaces" percieved by the players. EQ, and later SWG, were soon to be hit with nerf after nerf, all in the persuit of that elusive "balance" everyone seemed to want, but couldnt quantify.

Long story short (I know, too late), this snowballed into the final devastation most of us know as "The Great SWG Revamp" (or more commonly, $OEs huge screwup) that alienated over 70% of SWGs long standing players, causing most of them to quit the game alltogether.

>The old man leans forward to the young'uns sitting in the front row with the "HJ" Nametags<

PLEASE, SIMU, Learn from these mistakes! Dont try to please every single player you attract to your game! Balance is a near impossible pipedream when trying to build a system with classes that people interested in those classes would truly enjoy!

You cant please everyone all the time, but killing a whiner as an example will... oh wait, sorry.... inner evil basterd came out again...

>leans back in his rocking chair, tamps out his pipe and makes a shooing motion<

Now scram, you noisy kids, time for my nap!

Xhar
 
Originally posted by Korama@May 22 2006, 07:44 PM
That was a great history lesson Xhar! Amazing how the more things change the more they stay the same, eh? ;)
It truely is. Outside of graphics, not much at all has changed in 10 years or so in the MMO's we play. Except that there is less deversity now than there was when it was just UO, AC and EQ. Now, it's just EQ #972344.....

The industry needs a huge kick in it's stagnant ass. I hope that HJ can be the boot. ;)
 
I guess I'm just afraid that powergamers will discover the Ultimate Build and annihilate everyone else in PvP. In PvE, unbalanced characters don't bother me so much...unless they're camping a spawn I need for a quest, or something.

So yeah....we don't need any PvP Pun-Puns.
 
Originally posted by Riceman@May 22 2006, 07:02 PM
I guess I'm just afraid that powergamers will discover the Ultimate Build and annihilate everyone else in PvP. In PvE, unbalanced characters don't bother me so much...unless they're camping a spawn I need for a quest, or something.

So yeah....we don't need any PvP Pun-Puns.
The problem with "the ultimate build" in PvE is that in order to find a group, you must be a character using the Ultimate Build spec.

DAoC has seen it's share of this. My Level 50 Elf Champion is not called on unless there's an empty spot where he can "tag along", since at high level's his DD spells are almost always resisted, and he's not much of a dmg shield, or a dmg causer.

It's no fun when you're not wanted in PvE. Then you become a pure RP character, and if your goal is to reach end game in one year it will take three.

~ Jaraeth
 
Back
Top