Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

PVP Worlds...Follow

#102 Jun 01 2013 at 1:48 PM Rating: Decent
lolgaxe wrote:
Pawkeshup, Averter of Apocalypse wrote:
Name me one FF title that you play as a villain with a storyline set of missions or has a moral choice system.
That's the only option? One group must be villains and the other must be heroes? Games with Open World PVP don't even use "villain vs hero," distinctions, and both sides are essentially "questionably good with separate ideals and goals." Again, it's a complete lack of imagination or lack of faith in the writing staff to believe that "just because it hasn't been done then it shouldn't be done because it hasn't been done!"

No, it isn't. The simple fact is that, unquestioningly, the entire franchise has had an entirely co-operative theme to it. It hasn't had "quesitonable good with separate ideals and goals"-type storylines. Ever. If they want to make an MMO like that, it would be best to do so under a new title, because this name has brand recognition and a fan base that has an expectations.

Let me put it another way: New Coke.

Now, all sodas are basically the same. Carbonation, high fructose syrup, et cetera. So why do people prefer a brand? Because when they purchase a brand they recognize, they expect it to taste a certain way. In 1985, Coca-Cola decided to change the formula of their main product, and simply label it new. It still was in the traditional red can, and if you did not look closely, you would get a sip of a product you most likely did not want. It led to it being rebranded, and eventually discontinued.

Brand recognition means something. It's not just a cutsey marketing phrase. When you have a tradition of a certain set of criteria that your product has always has, a radical departure from that can result in a major negative backlash. Like, say, making jobs tied to weapons, and those jobs not feeling unique enough to honour the tradition of the franchise. Sound familiar?

Now if the franchise had dipped its toe into those waters, or was more about internal conflict, or faction warfare like, oh, Warhammer, or Warcraft, or Star Wars... then I would expect them to include PvP and storylining to back that up. Final Fantasy never really has had too much in the way of moral ambiguity or multi-pronged storylines about warring nations. Pretty much, every story is two-sided. There are rarely even multiple factions in play, it's normally rag-tag heroes of differing backstories facing down against a unified front of unquestionable evil/destruction/malevolent intent.

FFXI did have conflict among the nations, but you see how it was handled. The writers did, in fact, put in the fact that the three nations were not on the same page, and had greatly differing ideas and methods of working. However, there was no question that the nations knew, at the end of the day, it was stand united or fall into darkness. When conflict games were introduced, it was more based, again, on teams of players rather than open PvP; PvP in the sense of taking one another out wasn't even the focus, it was about scoring goals in a game, like Blitzball. It failed mainly because it was ridiculous to join a match at times unless your server was mostly on board for it (the fact that level sync wasn't a thing back then hurt it too). However, that mechanic is more in keeping with the "game within a game" mentality you see in the series. If they had made it so groups could have started the event, rather than it be scheduled, it likely would have been a broader success.

You want to know what happens when you try to totally change ideals of a game? Chocobo Racing. You see, if they had just stripped out the racing mini-game from FFVII, layered in more content, and released it, it likely would have been somewhat more successful. What they did was buckle to investor pressure to jump on a bandwagon, and sell out the brand. Instead of trying to see the franchise through a new light, they simply dropped in a new mechanic to an existing property and expected that brand recognition alone would move product. By taking FFXIV, turning it into an Open PvP, and releasing it, it would be no less than making Chocobo Racing II. It's obvious that it is to jump on the PvP bandwagon, and try to win new fans from that experience rather than providing the experience people expect when they buy an FF game.

Again, it's not a matter of could, it's a matter of should.

Pawkeshup, Averter of the Apocalypse wrote:
So when people say "It doesn't feel like Final Fantasy", they mean "This series has never been about PvP, or playing the villain within the cannon of the story, it's always about reconciliation, redemption, and overcoming adversity by coming together, not by fighting among ourselves."
"This franchise has never been about online play." So you must agree that Final Fantasy XI, by virtue of the "doesn't feel like" argument, doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game either. By extension then XIV doesn't feel like a Final Fantasy game either. Here's another example: "This franchise was never about mini-games." A motorcycle chase through a highway? Submarine battles? Card games? Underwater Rugby? We just eliminated 7 through 10 because they don't "feel like Final Fantasy games." I don't see the outrage over that, though. In fact, I see excitement over it, yet those mechanics are very clearly not Final Fantasy. You know what made them "work?" A writer. Arguably another writer could have made Open World PVP work as well. We can probably eliminate every Final Fantasy that isn't Final Fantasy 1 as "not feeling like a Final Fantasy game" if we bother.

There's no such thing as "it doesn't feel like Final Fantasy." You know what does feel like Final Fantasy, though? The developers trying new things. That's the only true constant (besides the obvious similarly objects, named or otherwise). It's pretty hit or miss, but the alternative is stagnation which is infinitely worse. Just dismissing an (hypothetical) idea simply because it hasn't been done yet is hardly a good reason to not do something.[/quote]
You are confusing storyline and thematic tones with game mechanics. Square has always played with gameplay mechanics, and it's even known for doing it. The game has gone from turn based, to real-time combat. It has had varying leveling systems. It has had differing settings and environments. It has even played with the genre with success (Final Fantasy Tactics, Final Fantasy Dissidia, Chocobo Dungeon), even if it has failed when not trying to honour the thematic tones of the franchise. Also, their very first game in the series had a tile puzzle game embedded in it, so yea, games within games have existed as long as the series has. But it has also had unified themes. Don't believe me?

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy

Plot and themes

The central conflict in many Final Fantasy games focuses on a group of characters battling an evil, and sometimes ancient, antagonist that dominates the game's world. Stories frequently involve a sovereign state in rebellion, with the protagonists taking part in the rebellion. The heroes are often destined to defeat the evil, and occasionally gather as a direct result of the antagonist's malicious actions.[5][50] Another staple of the series is the existence of two villains; the main villain is not always who it appears to be, as the primary antagonist may actually be subservient to another character or entity.[5] The main antagonist introduced at the beginning of the game is not always the final enemy, and the characters must continue their quest beyond what appears to be the final fight.[50]
Stories in the series frequently emphasize the internal struggles, passions, and tragedies of the characters, and the main plot often recedes into the background as the focus shifts to their personal lives.[25][51] Games also explore relationships between characters, ranging from love to rivalry.[5] Other recurring situations that drive the plot include amnesia, a hero corrupted by an evil force, mistaken identity, and self-sacrifice.[5][52][53] Magical orbs and crystals are recurring in-game items that are frequently connected to the themes of the games' plots.[50] Crystals often play a central role in the creation of the world, and a majority of the Final Fantasy games link crystals and orbs to the planet's life force. As such, control over these crystals drives the main conflict.[50][54] The classical elements are also a recurring theme in the series related to the heroes, villains, and items.[50] Other common plot and setting themes include the Gaia hypothesis, an apocalypse, and conflicts between advanced technology and nature.[50][52][55]

I honestly was about to rewrite the majority of that here never having read it in this article! Just being a long-time fan of this series, you see the recurring themes. Sacrifice, devotion, teamwork, setting aside rivalry for the better good, fights against unquestioning evil. WoW, one of the major PvP games out there, is set up with warring factions since the first games in the Warcraft franchise. **** it's set in the same bloody world! It's literally the same story just seen via different mechanics.

Nowhere up there does it say that FF cannot transcend the genre of game (it has tactics-based games and even a couple of solid fighters based on it). Nowhere in that summery does it state that there are rival factions either. Changing thematic tone in a series is a dangerous thing. If done well, it can be respected, and even praised. But by and large, shifts in tone are panned. Let's look at Resident Evil.

Resident Evil started as a tense horror game, where resources were limited, the enemies seemingly endless, and where you were very much dis-empowered. It was a critically praised game, even if it had terrible dialogue. Over the course of the series, however, the horror elements have been stripped away, leaving a generic shooter game where the enemies are zombies. The plot has become utterly laughable, and the thematic tones of the series largely lost under the shift of gameplay style. Now, when they made each game, they faced a choice. Should they continue to cater to fans of horror, or should they lighten the survival elements to cater to a broader audience. They chose the latter, to the ruination of what the franchise was about.

I can fault Square for tons of things. TONS. I am not a fan of their games after XI (XII felt like offline XI, which felt terrible, XIV had major issues, and I didn't even play XIII when I heard the phrase "it gets good 18 hours in"), but one thing that I can see about those games I do treasure is that I can see the thematic reason why. Square has done an absolutely brilliant job of maintaining Final Fantasy as a brand recognized for quality stories, interesting characters, solid game mechanics and, yes, strong thematic undertones making it all feel connected. To suddenly jar that is unwelcome and unwanted. You can see I'm not alone in this. I am willing to bet that everyone who says PvP does not feel like Final Fantasy has been a long-time fan of the series.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#103 Jun 01 2013 at 2:02 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
So the game should be 40 hours long at best, fully voiced, and i should be able to control anybody who joins my party ?
____________________________
MUTED
#104 Jun 01 2013 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
262 posts
Kachi wrote:
It just allows parties to function without a WHM.


Then why ever grab a whm when you can just slap on another DD and function just fine?

Maybe you're talking way above my head here and I'm just not understanding where you're coming from, but shouldn't whm's be high value squishy targets? And pld's high value rock solid targets?

I must be too engrained from FFXI and other games that the DD role is pretty much dime a dozen and sometimes does get left sitting around longer since there are most likely more people playing DD compared to healer and tank.
#105 Jun 01 2013 at 2:16 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Kachi wrote:
Lack of available high value units (e.g. healers, tanks) is a widely accepted problem in most MMOs, not just my opinion.

When you have those high value units in the game, encounter balance must be tuned higher to preserve the challenge of the game. That means that parties of low value units can't clear the content. That's what results in people sitting around with their thumbs up their asses for a high value unit (like a WHM) to appear so that they can experience content.


Ah I see now. To you, EVERY game is just poorly designed. Smiley: lol Sorry to break it you, but every single MMO I've ever played has classes that are just more important or higher value than others. If they were all evenly balanced, it would be the most boring game in existence, because there would be absolutely no point in playing other classes. You can't get a tactical advantage on anyone, because everyone has the same inherent optimum ability. Sorry, that's just ridiculous.

The way a game SHOULD work is that certain classes have distinct advantages over certain other classes based on their inherent abilities, but those other classes outshine them in other ways and have advantages over other classes. Basically the rock paper scissors idea. Every mmo I've played has this.

Kachi wrote:
It's not my opinion; it's math.


Sorry dude, you lose the argument the second you can't differentiate your opinion from fact. Every single mmo in existence has classes that are more valuable than others. That's just the way it is, and if they were all balanced exactly the same, the game would completely lose its competitive edge.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 4:27pm by BartelX
#106 Jun 01 2013 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#107 Jun 01 2013 at 2:32 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Lack of available high value units (e.g. healers, tanks) is a widely accepted problem in most MMOs, not just my opinion.

When you have those high value units in the game, encounter balance must be tuned higher to preserve the challenge of the game. That means that parties of low value units can't clear the content. That's what results in people sitting around with their thumbs up their asses for a high value unit (like a WHM) to appear so that they can experience content.


Ah I see now. To you, EVERY game is just poorly designed. Smiley: lol Sorry to break it you, but every single MMO I've ever played has classes that are just more important or higher value than others. If they were all evenly balanced, it would be the most boring game in existence, because there would be absolutely no point in playing other classes. You can't get a tactical advantage on anyone, because everyone has the same inherent optimum ability. Sorry, that's just plain dumb (not you, just the idea).

The way a game SHOULD work is that certain classes have distinct advantages over certain other classes based on their inherent abilities, but those other classes outshine them in other ways and have advantages over other classes. Basically the rock paper scissors idea. Every mmo I've played has this.

Kachi wrote:
It's not my opinion; it's math.


Sorry dude, you lose the argument the second you can't differentiate your opinion from fact. Every single mmo in existence has classes that are more valuable than others. That's just the way it is, and if they were all balanced exactly the same, the game would completely lose its competitive edge.


Not in GW2, So not every single MMO in existence follows that path, also you guys need to relax a bit before posting, and actually think on what you are commenting, you are talking about healers in the PVE sense, when kachi is talking about it in a PVP sense, of course his opinion is gonna be different, he is talking about A and you are talking about W, and yes most games are poorly designed PVP wise, classes should be balanced, not broken for the sake of "Well i am X class i should be OP" like the argument people made about death knights in WOW, "Oh they are a heroic class.. They should do 50 times the dps of a normal class" which is bogus... all dps should be balanced around each other, their only advantage should center around encounter mechanics, like in wow.
____________________________
MUTED
#108 Jun 01 2013 at 2:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Hatamaz wrote:
Kachi wrote:
It just allows parties to function without a WHM.


Then why ever grab a whm when you can just slap on another DD and function just fine?

Maybe you're talking way above my head here and I'm just not understanding where you're coming from, but shouldn't whm's be high value squishy targets? And pld's high value rock solid targets?

I must be too engrained from FFXI and other games that the DD role is pretty much dime a dozen and sometimes does get left sitting around longer since there are most likely more people playing DD compared to healer and tank.


Honestly I think that's a lot of what's going on here--not being able to think outside the EQ/FFXI paradigm.

You grab the WHM because they're your friend, or they're particularly good at their job. Those are the reasons you should play with someone--not because they're literally the only person on the server who is available for an artificially necessitated role.

BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Lack of available high value units (e.g. healers, tanks) is a widely accepted problem in most MMOs, not just my opinion.

When you have those high value units in the game, encounter balance must be tuned higher to preserve the challenge of the game. That means that parties of low value units can't clear the content. That's what results in people sitting around with their thumbs up their asses for a high value unit (like a WHM) to appear so that they can experience content.


Ah I see now. To you, EVERY game is just poorly designed. Smiley: lol Sorry to break it you, but every single MMO I've ever played has classes that are just more important or higher value than others. If they were all evenly balanced, it would be the most boring game in existence, because there would be absolutely no point in playing other classes. You can't get a tactical advantage on anyone, because everyone has the same inherent optimum ability. Sorry, that's just plain dumb (not you, just the idea).

The way a game SHOULD work is that certain classes have distinct advantages over certain other classes based on their inherent abilities, but those other classes outshine them in other ways and have advantages over other classes. Basically the rock paper scissors idea. Every mmo I've played has this.

Kachi wrote:
It's not my opinion; it's math.


Sorry dude, you lose the argument the second you can't differentiate your opinion from fact. Every single mmo in existence has classes that are more valuable than others. That's just the way it is, and if they were all balanced exactly the same, the game would completely lose its competitive edge.


Most MMOs ARE poorly designed. The players know it, and other game designers know it (even though some don't know how to solve it).

Also, this idea that evenly balancing the classes makes them boring is a complete non sequitur. So why don't you save me some time here and tell me: Why do you think that? Because it's complete nonsense, and you haven't bothered to explain why a WHM needs to be more important than a damage dealer to a party's success. To me, that just shows that you don't understand how fun works. I do, because that's what I study, so I'm happy to break this down.

Also, spare me the "declaring when the argument is won/lost." It's not really constructive to an adult discussion. If you're looking for debates to win and lose, look somewhere else. I'm here for friendly discourse.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#109 Jun 01 2013 at 2:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Personally I don't think GW2 is a good example or I would have raised it myself, but you're correct that it is an example of a successful MMO where classes are self-sustainable and independent. It doesn't have very good party play, but that's due to other reasons that I really didn't want to get into.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#110 Jun 01 2013 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Correct me if I'm wrong. You think that for some reason, if all the classes are balanced such that all classes have a 50/50 shot in PvP of beating other classes, that somehow translates into the ability to design PvE encounters that are inclusive to every class equally. Is that the jist?

If so, let me give you two huge reasons why that will not work.

1. Mobs may have completely different resistances than players, or completely different reactions to abilities that automatically throw the class balance off. Like, what if there are no classes that are weak/strong to certain types of damage or certain abilities, yet there are mobs that have that weakness/strength, thus throwing things out of balance. I'm assuming your response would be, well then don't make mobs with those weaknesses/strengths. Well now we've just dumbed down our content in order to keep class balance. Because whether you like it or not, one of the main things that raid bosses in almost all games have are strengths and weaknesses. By eliminating those, you're removing one avenue of making interesting content.

2. Mobs may use certain tactics or have certain traits and abilities that players don't. For instance, flying mobs that can only be hit by spells or ranged attacks when in the air. Unless player classes have that same trait, you've just unbalanced your classes, regardless of how balanced they are against one another. Or how about a mob that has a different attack style than all the classes? How about a mob that is in perma-hundred fists mode? Unless there's a player character that can attain that, you've just unbalanced the classes because now the classes that are best equipped to handle that become more important than others.

I could list about 100 more scenarios where your class balance idea doesn't work. And please don't tell me that developers should just develop the content to work within what the classes offer. That's lame, boring, and to quote you "bad design".

Kachi wrote:

Also, spare me the "declaring when the argument is won/lost." It's not really constructive to an adult discussion. If you're looking for debates to win and lose, look somewhere else. I'm here for friendly discourse.


When you can't even admit that what you're posting is an opinion, you have lost. Sorry, unless you're going to parenthetically site your proof to back your claims, what you are stating are opinions. Plain and simple.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 4:41pm by BartelX
#111 Jun 01 2013 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


I believe that's what he's saying. I'm going to sit back and see how this unfolds.


EDIT: I'm pretty sure the "balance" Kachi is talking about is what we see in Guild Wars 2... that game is incredibly balanced between classes... and WOEFULLY boring because of it.



Edited, Jun 1st 2013 1:44pm by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#112 Jun 01 2013 at 2:47 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Thayos wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


I believe that's what he's saying. I'm going to sit back and see how this unfolds.


EDIT: I'm pretty sure the "balance" Kachi is talking about is what we see in Guild Wars 2... that game is incredibly balanced between classes... and WOEFULLY boring because of it.


And almost completely lacking in party play or any meaningful endgame content for PvE... but hey, the PvP is fun. Smiley: rolleyes
#113 Jun 01 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Correct me if I'm wrong. You think that for some reason, if all the classes are balanced such that all classes have a 50/50 shot in PvP of beating other classes, that somehow translates into the ability to design PvE encounters that are inclusive to every class equally. Is that the jist?

If so, let me give you two huge reasons why that will not work.

1. Mobs may have completely different resistances than players, or completely different reactions to abilities that automatically throw the class balance off. Like, what if there are no classes that are weak/strong to certain types of damage or certain abilities, yet there are mobs that have that weakness/strength, thus throwing things out of balance. I'm assuming your response would be, well then don't make mobs with those weaknesses/strengths. Well now we've just dumbed down our content in order to keep class balance. Because whether you like it or not, one of the main things that raid bosses in almost all games have are strengths and weaknesses. By eliminating those, you're removing one avenue of making interesting content.

2. Mobs may use certain tactics or have certain traits and abilities that players don't. For instance, flying mobs that can only be hit by spells or ranged attacks when in the air. Unless player classes have that same trait, you've just unbalanced your classes, regardless of how balanced they are against one another. Or how about a mob that has a different attack style than all the classes? How about a mob that is in perma-hundred fists mode? Unless there's a player character that can attain that, you've just unbalanced the classes because now the classes that are best equipped to handle that become more important than others.

I could list about 100 more scenarios where your class balance idea doesn't work. And please don't tell me that developers should just develop the content to work within what the classes offer. That's lame, boring, and to quote you "bad design".

Kachi wrote:

Also, spare me the "declaring when the argument is won/lost." It's not really constructive to an adult discussion. If you're looking for debates to win and lose, look somewhere else. I'm here for friendly discourse.


When you can't even admit that what you're posting is an opinion, you have lost. Sorry, unless you're going to parenthetically site your proof to back your claims, what you are stating are opinions. Plain and simple.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 4:41pm by BartelX


1. If there are no classes that are weak/strong to elements, that's fine. You're SUPPOSED to add those elements after you've balanced the other systems independently. That kind of system is much easier to balance on top of an already balanced system.

2. It's no problem to add abilities and such that other players don't have. Situational tactical balancing and statistical balancing are completely separate methods of balancing that occur in completely separate aspects of the development cycle. If you want to add some encounters where a certain type of class shines, fine! Now that your classes are statistically balanced, you can much more easily create other aspects of the encounter that keep everyone else engaged as well. The idea isn't to make it so that only one set of abilities is useful, afterall. It's to make people think about HOW they can be useful.

Finally, if you had interesting classes in the first place, it wouldn't really be bad design. Perhaps not optimized, but not "bad."

Like I said, statistical balancing is a matter of math. Whether or not the classes should be balanced is a matter of opinion. Whether or not the classes can be balanced, and whether doing so results in some classes getting left out, undervalued, etc., is a mathematical and psychological fact. And arguably, people aren't always even correct about their own opinion, especially in regards to game design. Like when a child is convinced they don't like a type of food, and then they try it, and they realize they were wrong--that too, is an opinion. Food tends to make for good game design analogies; see my sig.

Also: No, YOU have lost.

(See how that really doesn't add anything to my argument? It just comes across as being an argumentative jackass, whether I'm right or not.)
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#114 Jun 01 2013 at 2:53 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
BartelX wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me that your argument is that a WHM for instance, matched against a SAM, should have roughly a 50% chance of winning a one-on-one battle, all things being equal i.e. talent of the player, level, equipment, etc. Before I respond I wish to ensure I'm interpreting your position on the matter correctly.


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Correct me if I'm wrong. You think that for some reason, if all the classes are balanced such that all classes have a 50/50 shot in PvP of beating other classes, that somehow translates into the ability to design PvE encounters that are inclusive to every class equally. Is that the jist?

If so, let me give you two huge reasons why that will not work.

1. Mobs may have completely different resistances than players, or completely different reactions to abilities that automatically throw the class balance off. Like, what if there are no classes that are weak/strong to certain types of damage or certain abilities, yet there are mobs that have that weakness/strength, thus throwing things out of balance. I'm assuming your response would be, well then don't make mobs with those weaknesses/strengths. Well now we've just dumbed down our content in order to keep class balance. Because whether you like it or not, one of the main things that raid bosses in almost all games have are strengths and weaknesses. By eliminating those, you're removing one avenue of making interesting content.

2. Mobs may use certain tactics or have certain traits and abilities that players don't. For instance, flying mobs that can only be hit by spells or ranged attacks when in the air. Unless player classes have that same trait, you've just unbalanced your classes, regardless of how balanced they are against one another. Or how about a mob that has a different attack style than all the classes? How about a mob that is in perma-hundred fists mode? Unless there's a player character that can attain that, you've just unbalanced the classes because now the classes that are best equipped to handle that become more important than others.

I could list about 100 more scenarios where your class balance idea doesn't work. And please don't tell me that developers should just develop the content to work within what the classes offer. That's lame, boring, and to quote you "bad design".

Kachi wrote:

Also, spare me the "declaring when the argument is won/lost." It's not really constructive to an adult discussion. If you're looking for debates to win and lose, look somewhere else. I'm here for friendly discourse.


When you can't even admit that what you're posting is an opinion, you have lost. Sorry, unless you're going to parenthetically site your proof to back your claims, what you are stating are opinions. Plain and simple.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 4:41pm by BartelX


Hmm! Why are you bringing this up ? In XIV PVP and PVE are separated, as in your abilities in PVE, are not the same ones as the ones you will use in PVP, totally negates your argument, there is not balacing PVP & PVE at the same time.

I
____________________________
MUTED
#115 Jun 01 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
273 posts
Kachi wrote:


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Ostia wrote:


Hmm! Why are you bringing this up ? In XIV PVP and PVE are separated, as in your abilities in PVE, are not the same ones as the ones you will use in PVP, totally negates your argument, there is not balacing PVP & PVE at the same time.

I


Kachi isn't talking about PVP apparently.
____________________________


I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not). -Kierk
#116 Jun 01 2013 at 2:58 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Parathyroid wrote:
Kachi wrote:


Yes, that is what I'm saying, but understanding what I'm saying and why I'm saying it are two completely separate things, as has been made apparent. It has absolutely nothing to do with PvP.


Ostia wrote:


Hmm! Why are you bringing this up ? In XIV PVP and PVE are separated, as in your abilities in PVE, are not the same ones as the ones you will use in PVP, totally negates your argument, there is not balacing PVP & PVE at the same time.

I


Kachi isn't talking about PVP apparently.


He was, until they keept talking about healers and being left out and sad stuff like that lol
____________________________
MUTED
#117 Jun 01 2013 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
No, I'm talking about PvP as a method of assessing the statistical value of units/classes. If you're going to have PvP, then it's a given that you do it. Not many people realize how much more easily it makes designing balanced PvE encounters. But it's not solely my opinion; I know a couple of other people who are well-versed in game design and came to the same conclusion for the same reason, independent of one another.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#118 Jun 01 2013 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Ostia wrote:
Hmm! Why are you bringing this up ? In XIV PVP and PVE are separated, as in your abilities in PVE, are not the same ones as the ones you will use in PVP, totally negates your argument, there is not balacing PVP & PVE at the same time.


Uh, because we're talking about more than just XIV at this point, and we're not even really talking about PvP other than using at as a starting point. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Kachi wrote:
Also: No, YOU have lost.

(See how that really doesn't add anything to my argument? It just comes across as being an argumentative jackass, whether I'm right or not.)


No, what doesn't add anything to your argument is saying stuff like this:

Kachi wrote:
It's not my opinion; it's math.


What you described had nothing to do with what you were quoting, and nothing to do with math. You were quoted as saying

Kachi wrote:
If a WHM can go toe to toe with other classes, then it will be easier to design challenging, unique encounters for PvE.


Having a whm be on equal footing as a DD in a 1 on 1 battle has absolutely nothing to do with making challenging, unique encounters. Unless it's a whm solo encounter, and if that's what you meant, you're absolutely right! If you meant in a group setting, it does nothing to make designing the content easier. Having all classes balanced so that, by your own words, you can design an encounter rating of 30 and use any 6 classes with a rating of 5, doesn't work. I mentioned a couple reasons above, which you conveniently just sidestepped by saying you rebalance after the fact (which by the way you'd have to do every time you add a new encounter variable not available to classes). The insane amount of time that would waste in a development cycle alone makes it completely moot.

Perhaps I was being a jackass in saying you lost, but you come off as such an arrogant, I-can-never-be-wrong poster all the time that I felt the need to point out that if you can't even admit something you're posting is an opinion, you lose. Perhaps I was too harsh, but it's my opinion, much like everything else I'm posting.

See how that works? Smiley: grin
#119 Jun 01 2013 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
262 posts
Kachi wrote:
No, I'm talking about PvP as a method of assessing the statistical value of units/classes. If you're going to have PvP, then it's a given that you do it. Not many people realize how much more easily it makes designing balanced PvE encounters. But it's not solely my opinion; I know a couple of other people who are well-versed in game design and came to the same conclusion for the same reason, independent of one another.


I'm not a game designer, but as a game consumer and a FF fan and from my own personal experiences with PvP I just don't want them to force PvP down our throats and Eff up this game because of all the balancing issues.

If from what I've read from other people is correct and they have a PvP system separate from your PvE abilities and it's balanced separately from one another then by all means yes, that is a great idea.

#120 Jun 01 2013 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
So you inferred that I was being arrogant, and you can see my sig about that as well. That's exactly what the quote is in reference to. Honestly, your counter-arguments are not as compelling as you seem to think they are, either, and I could just as easily accuse you of the same arrogance, but since you can't seem to avoid making things personal and keep the discussion constructive, I'm just going to ignore you. You're really not leaving me an avenue of productive discourse when you just dismiss my arguments out of hand.

If anyone else would like to discuss why intraplayer statistical balancing in an MMO should be done prior to encounter balancing, I'm happy to discuss it.

____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#121 Jun 01 2013 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Kachi wrote:
So you inferred that I was being arrogant, and you can see my sig about that as well. That's exactly what the quote is in reference to.


I wasn't inferring that you were being arrogant, I was telling you that you were being arrogant the moment you claimed what you were saying wasn't an opinion when it clearly, unequivocally was. And I was being an arrogant jackass for calling you on it in the matter that I did. I know that. Sorry if that offends you, I don't pull my punches, I call em like I see em... but at least I can admit my faults. Can you?
#122 Jun 01 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
It seemed to me like you were nitpicking on my larger argument (which was not an opinion so much as a math problem) based on the way I phrased it (which I acknowledged, at least twice, was as an opinion). I apologize when I believe I've made a mistake (I think I just did so two minutes before you posted that), and I'm generally very willing to believe that I've made a mistake. The entire spirit of why I'm here is to see if I'm wrong about FFXIV.

The bottom line for me is this: I state what I think in a matter-of-fact way, just as you do, but I focus on the subject of conversation, rather than the person. If you can't do the same, we're not going to have discussions about these things, period. Whatever you think about game design, FFXIV, etc., is really not important enough for me to humor someone who can't show me that basic respect. These are not weighty matters, and I have a hard time respecting people who take these sorts of discussions so seriously that they snipe at others over them (or just don't care because, "Whatev's, it's the intrawebs"). If that bothers you, then please, just don't talk to me.

Also, you get no credit for unapologetically admitting your faults, at least not with me.

AND: You have to infer that someone is being arrogant before you can tell them that they are. Unless you're a mind reader, which I presume you're not.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 2:51pm by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#123 Jun 01 2013 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,898 posts
Kachi wrote:
AND: You have to infer that someone is being arrogant before you can tell them that they are. Unless you're a mind reader, which I presume you're not. Edited, Jun 1st 2013 2:51pm by Kachi


Look at that, you just inferred something about me. Shall I point you to the quote in your sig about it? Hehe, just kidding. You need to lighten up a bit. I called you arrogant because you made an arrogant statement. I wasn't making an inference, I was making an observation. You can infer that my observation was actually an inference... but... circular logic... blah blah, not getting anywhere. I apologize for my bluntness, it's a trait that always shows through when I'm debating something. My mom tells me I should have been a lawyer... I tell her she should have been a better mother (to be fair, she was ****** most of the time and she knows that I still love her regardless). It's just my nature to be blunt and say what I'm thinking.

Kachi wrote:
It seemed to me like you were nitpicking on my larger argument (which was not an opinion so much as a math problem) based on the way I phrased it (which I acknowledged, at least twice, was as an opinion). I apologize when I believe I've made a mistake (I think I just did so two minutes before you posted that), and I'm generally very willing to believe that I've made a mistake. The entire spirit of why I'm here is to see if I'm wrong about FFXIV.


I wasn't nitpicking, I was pointing out flaws in your logic, at least from my perspective. I still don't think that having balanced classes for PvP would in anyway enhance or simplify the creation of PvE encounters. Clearly you do, hence these are our opinions on the matter. It's not math, as much as you'd like to claim it is. There's too many undefined variables to make it that simple, and more would be added on a regular basis... but I digress.

Kachi wrote:
The bottom line for me is this: I state what I think in a matter-of-fact way, just as you do, but I focus on the subject of conversation, rather than the person. If you can't do the same, we're not going to have discussions about these things, period. Whatever you think about game design, FFXIV, etc., is really not important enough for me to humor someone who can't show me that basic respect.


I'm not sure how I was focusing on you, other than saying that, in my opinion, you lost the argument the minute you claimed that your thoughts were more than just an opinion. In fact, you are the one who called me a jackass before I even mentioned you being arrogant. Regardless, it doesn't bother me in the slightest because I know I can come off as a jackass. If I offended you, I apologize. It wasn't the intent, I was just trying to explain my statement.

Kachi wrote:
Also, you get no credit for unapologetically admitting your faults, at least not with me.


I never asked for credit, nor do I want it. I'm not some 12 year old in Math class looking to impress teacher. The truth of the matter is, I could really care less how you view me. Again, I realize that's a very blunt statement, but it's the truth. If I disagree with you, I'm going to tell you why. If I see you saying things that are arrogant, I'm going to let you know about it. Perhaps my tact wasn't great, but I've never really been known to show great tact. If you don't want to deal with that, fine, put me on ignore and move on. Don't worry, it won't hurt my feelings.

#124 Jun 01 2013 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
If what Kachi says is really what they're teaching in game design school these days, that really helps me understand why games these days are so boring. Seriously, anyone, go play Guild Wars 2 and tell me that's really an interesting battle system. It flat-out sucks. Solo play is super easy, and there's really no point to play in parties. Even when people do play in parties, they just kind of zerg the same thing, because everyone is good at everything. There are no real strengths or weaknesses. It's like the little-league soccer of MMORPGs.

I have no doubt that Kachi's opinions on balance are based on math. That doesn't mean it's the optimal approach though. Obviously, it depends on what you want from your game; other approaches to game design will also be based on math, too.

Whichever math you choose to follow, the bottom line is that FFXIV should not be (and, thankfully, will not be) a game where a white mage can go toe-to-toe with a damage dealer. That's just not realistic, and it doesn't make any sense. A damage dealer should win that fight pretty quickly 100 percent of the time. I'm trying to imagine a real-world example of a soldier versus a field medic... the soldier wins that fight every time... but soldiers need field medics to survive.

You add "balance" to the confrontation by adding different players (or, in this case, monsters) with their own strengths and weaknesses to each side of the battle. THAT is how you encourage interesting, involved PvE battles. That's the difference between Final Fantasy (which has always emphasized party play) and everything else on the market, which is catering to the individual. That's why SE would be making a HUGE mistake to balance FFXIV on PvP principles.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 3:54pm by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#125 Jun 01 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
If balance is so much fun, then trains are rollercoasters.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#126 Jun 01 2013 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,386 posts
There's also the fact that 1v1 balancing is just about the dumbest thing you can attempt.

There's no way to do it without making the classes carbon copies of each other. MMOs are meant to be played in groups. And there's a very good reason why Blizzard stopped caring about even their 2v2 arena bracket, and doesn't offer a 1v1 bracket.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#127 Jun 01 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Thayos wrote:
If what Kachi says is really what they're teaching in game design school these days, that really helps me understand why games these days are so boring. Seriously, anyone, go play Guild Wars 2 and tell me that's really an interesting battle system. It flat-out sucks. Solo play is super easy, and there's really no point to play in parties. Even when people do play in parties, they just kind of zerg the same thing, because everyone is good at everything. There are no real strengths or weaknesses. It's like the little-league soccer of MMORPGs.

I have no doubt that Kachi's opinions on balance are based on math. That doesn't mean it's the optimal approach though. Obviously, it depends on what you want from your game; other approaches to game design will also be based on math, too.

Whichever math you choose to follow, the bottom line is that FFXIV should not be (and, thankfully, will not be) a game where a white mage can go toe-to-toe with a damage dealer. That's just not realistic, and it doesn't make any sense. A damage dealer should win that fight pretty quickly 100 percent of the time. I'm trying to imagine a real-world example of a soldier versus a field medic... the soldier wins that fight every time... but soldiers need field medics to survive.

You add "balance" to the confrontation by adding different players (or, in this case, monsters) with their own strengths and weaknesses to each side of the battle. THAT is how you encourage interesting, involved PvE battles. That's the difference between Final Fantasy (which has always emphasized party play) and everything else on the market, which is catering to the individual. That's why SE would be making a HUGE mistake to balance FFXIV on PvP principles.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 3:54pm by Thayos


Pawkeshup, Averter of the Apocalypse wrote:
If balance is so much fun, then trains are rollercoasters.


Archmage Callinon wrote:
There's also the fact that 1v1 balancing is just about the dumbest thing you can attempt.

There's no way to do it without making the classes carbon copies of each other. MMOs are meant to be played in groups. And there's a very good reason why Blizzard stopped caring about even their 2v2 arena bracket, and doesn't offer a 1v1 bracket.


Oyvey, all that and people are still confusing role and balance. Look, GW2 sucks because everyone has the same basic ROLE. The classes are not even balanced. That's why I specifically said I didn't want to use it as an example--it's not a good example. If that's what you're picturing, then stop--just... stop.

If you're thinking it affects gameplay in any meaningful way, then you're wrong, and you haven't grasped a single thing about statistical balancing. White Mages still heal, Paladins still tank-- party dynamics and roles remain intact. The ONLY real difference in using PvP to conduct statistical balancing is that you don't need any specific class unless the encounter is designed for you to need it.

@Thayos: How on earth do you figure that it's unrealistic for a White Mage to go toe-to-toe with a damage dealer? You realize that that can happen in the FF world at any time? Put a high level healer against a low level DD, done. A White Mage uses MAGIC. Narratively, that magic can be as strong as you want it to be--strong enough to undo the damage that a warrior does. That's the convenient thing about magic--it's a narrative Cure V for the problem of realism.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#128 Jun 01 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
There's too many undefined variables to make it that simple, and more would be added on a regular basis... but I digress.


Yeah, it sure would be helpful if there was some way to control a certain set of fundamental variables, so that the encounter designs didn't have to be cobbled together in complete chaos via trial and error. Hmm, if only.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#129 Jun 01 2013 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Put a high level healer against a low level DD, done.


Oh, I thought you meant that healers and DDs of equal level should be equal in a one-on-one fight. A high-level whm surviving against a low-level DD makes more sense.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#130 Jun 01 2013 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
421 posts
here my idea of what they should do


make it an opnion for free company to flag themself as open world pvp.
so free company can open world pvp with each otherr.


does that hate open world pvp wouldnt get effect by this because they wouldnt join a pvpflag free company
____________________________
<a href="http://www.enjin.com/" alt="guild hosting"><img src="http://sigs.enjin.com/sig-ffxiv/39704_48d6215903dff562.png"></a>
#131 Jun 01 2013 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
That is what I mean. I was just using that as an example that there is no law that healers must crumple like flowers before any damage dealer. Why does a healer die to a damage dealer, narratively? Simply because we decide that their healing magic isn't potent enough to keep up with a damage dealer of the same level. But there's no reason we can't decide that it is.

Gameplay-wise, it's because of a statistical imbalance, but not the way you're thinking--consider that in most games, the healer is the first to die in PvP, but one of the most valuable units in PvE. If you're looking at it from that perspective, I can understand why it's difficult to see how balancing the class for PvP first lends itself to improved balance in PvE. But that's not what balancing the character is about. Balancing the character deals with both the balance in 1v1 and the balance in group v group. So yeah, the 1v1 matters and the white mage should be able to stand against the warrior, but it's not the entirety of unit balancing. If you only balance for 1v1, you haven't considered interplayer mechanics, so you haven't balanced everything.

Ultimately MMOs are racing games. The contestants are your entire party versus the enemy's entire party, and the race is a matter of HP loss. When you statistically balance the units so that your entire party always has roughly equivalent "HP impact," then you have a fixed starting point for enemy encounters. When you DON'T, then the enemy encounter is almost impossible to balance against player skill, and will depend significantly more upon the unit values in the player party.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#132 Jun 01 2013 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
***
2,232 posts
No matter how you balance it the guy with the shiny stick and flowery language dressed in robes should be all but instantly slaughtered by the guy with armor plating and a 7 foot lance. Healers heal. Damage dealers kill stuff. There's your balance. Yin and yang etc etc

Recent games have made healers do damage to other stuff in order to heal themselves or friends. But I've yet to see them give meaningful healing abilities to DD classes. It seems to me like they're over reaching what healing and support classes have been since table top RPGs. If you want to be the spell caster you give up hand to hand combat. If you want to do damage you sacrifice healing. That in my eyes is the balance. Every job is a point on a circle. Each job counterweights the other in a dynamic equilibrium. Making every class be able to everything is the same as just making one class be able to do anything. Which is why people were so upset in 1.0 and the jobs got put back in. Players want to be able to define their role.

ETA: unless you're counting Gandalf. The ultimate RDM brandishing his staff and sword fighting a creature made of shadow and flame with the flame of arnor. Which I guess would also put the whole elemental wheel discussion out of sorts too. Lol

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 7:02pm by LebargeX
____________________________
Character: Urzol Thrush
Server: Ultros
FC: The Kraken Club

Outshined

Teneleven wrote:
We secretly replaced your tank wemelchor with Foldgers Crystal's. Let's see what happens.

#133 Jun 01 2013 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Simply because we decide that their healing magic isn't potent enough to keep up with a damage dealer of the same level. But there's no reason we can't decide that it is.


You're right; it's a choice. The logical assumption is the armor-plated warrior with the Uber Battleaxe of Death will wipe the floor with the robed wand-waving white mage. That's how all Final Fantasy games have always been. You protect your mages. Control hate, use cover, put them in the back row, whatever. The party is balanced by each job having a role.

You could choose to do it your way, but that wouldn't be the Final Fantasy way, and this is a Final Fantasy game. Leave the 1:1 balancing to other games that invest more in PvP.

Quote:
No matter how you balance it the guy with the shiny stick and flowery language dressed in robes should be all but instantly slaughtered by the guy with armor plating and a 7 foot lance. Healers heal. Damage dealers kill stuff. There's your balance. Yin and yang etc etc


Exactly.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#134 Jun 01 2013 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
LebargeX wrote:
No matter how you balance it the guy with the shiny stick and flowery language dressed in robes should be all but instantly slaughtered by the guy with armor plating and a 7 foot lance. Healers heal. Damage dealers kill stuff. There's your balance. Yin and yang etc etc

Recent games have made healers do damage to other stuff in order to heal themselves or friends. But I've yet to see them give meaningful healing abilities to DD classes. It seems to me like they're over reaching what healing and support classes have been since table top RPGs. If you want to be the spell caster you give up hand to hand combat. If you want to do damage you sacrifice healing. That in my eyes is the balance. Every job is a point on a circle. Each job counterweights the other in a dynamic equilibrium. Making every class be able to everything is the same as just making one class be able to do anything. Which is why people were so upset in 1.0 and the jobs got put back in. Players want to be able to define their role.

ETA: unless you're counting Gandalf. The ultimate RDM brandishing his staff and sword fighting a creature made of shadow and flame with the flame of arnor. Which I guess would also put the whole elemental wheel discussion out of sorts too. Lol

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 7:02pm by LebargeX


&@Thayos, too, for echoing.

Again, that's not what I'm saying. I feel as though I'm not being listened to, here. You are talking about ROLES. I am talking about statistical balance. They are completely different things!

Let me go back to the narrative issue again, just because the first and second time were apparently not enough (which again, form should follow function, and narrative follows gameplay, not the other way around):
Why shouldn't the healer have potent enough healing powers that they can heal themselves effectively when stabbed by the guy with the lance? If you stop to think about it for more than two seconds, you'll quickly realize that there is no rational answer to this question. The healer is a healer, and so should excel at healing things, just like the lancer is good with a lance, and should excel at lancing things. No change of roles! The only question is, why can't the healer heal as competently as the lancer can lance? Why can't his healing numbers be raised in accordance with the lancer's lancing numbers?

The answer to that question has nothing to do with "realism" or "Final Fantasy tradition." It's purely a manifestation of the trinity, and we can open up a whole new thread about why the trinity is another tired and poorly implemented mechanic, why the number of roles in the trinity (ostensibly, three) is completely arbitrary, and how every class can be as equal a part of that teamwork wheel as any other if designed to be that way.

Guys, I know that you might not realize this, especially if you only hang out in this insular little community, but there are MMO fans in every game ******** daily and in unison about these issues in every game. They don't all agree, but don't think that this is just Kachi being eccentric. Lots of people are unhappy with the state of MMOs, and lots of people blame mechanics like the trinity, and poor development practices, like unit balancing. I promise I'm not treating you to my own brand of crackpot theories. Even game designers widely acknowledge these problems (but again, not all of them seeing the solutions). It's not always that they don't want to change them, but sometimes that investors, producers, and other designers won't allow them too.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#135 Jun 01 2013 at 9:05 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,232 posts
If it all balances out to zero then how do you determine a winner? Skill of the player?

But I'm teh leet rogue of d00m I should be able to slaughter this healer

But I'm teh leet healer of d00m and mom says that like Keith Richards I can't be harmed by conventional weapons.

If PvP is going to be a never ending war of attrition then I don't think that is good design. My opinion has always been that PvP should be role less because no matter your role 99 percent of people play it the same way. Run up to the closest guy throw everything you have at him until one of you dies. So why not just make a PvP job that has access to everything? Load up your skills load your weapons and just have at it. Then it's up to he players to balance out the fight not the programmers.

Stuff like this is why I usually have a distaste for PvP in general.

____________________________
Character: Urzol Thrush
Server: Ultros
FC: The Kraken Club

Outshined

Teneleven wrote:
We secretly replaced your tank wemelchor with Foldgers Crystal's. Let's see what happens.

#136 Jun 01 2013 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
***
1,313 posts
Quote:
Now, all sodas are basically the same. Carbonation, high fructose syrup, et cetera.


I buy the ones in the bottle from mexico. They use cane sugar :)
____________________________
Eithne Draocht
My IG: archaicmachinery - Friend me!
#137 Jun 01 2013 at 9:12 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
262 posts
The WHM might be able to outheal the damage at first, but then he runs out of mp and hasn't widdled the DD's hp down enough while he keeps trying to heal himself through the constant barrage of DD attacks.

I just must not understand where you are going with the statistical balancing mumbo jumbo.

I like the roles. It gives each person in their certain role something that they contribute to the party.
#138 Jun 01 2013 at 9:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
LebargeX wrote:
If it all balances out to zero then how do you determine a winner? Skill of the player?

But I'm teh leet rogue of d00m I should be able to slaughter this healer

But I'm teh leet healer of d00m and mom says that like Keith Richards I can't be harmed by conventional weapons.

If PvP is going to be a never ending war of attrition then I don't think that is good design. My opinion has always been that PvP should be role less because no matter your role 99 percent of people play it the same way. Run up to the closest guy throw everything you have at him until one of you dies. So why not just make a PvP job that has access to everything? Load up your skills load your weapons and just have at it. Then it's up to he players to balance out the fight not the programmers.

Stuff like this is why I usually have a distaste for PvP in general.



Is this really some revolutionary concept? That the more skilled player should be the winner? Game designers have known that nugget for decades. But moreover, it's not about who wins in PvP. It's about who "wins the invites" in PvE. It's about making sure that each class can pull its own weight without requiring a certain balance of roles. The roles are still there! They haven't changed at all! But you can win with whichever set of roles you want to, because they all bring an equal contribution to the party. If that concerns you because you imagine a scenario where parties are all DDs who just sit there wailing on the enemy with no sense of group tactics at all, then good, but that's a totally separate problem that has to do with poorly designed DDs. It has nothing to do with balancing the classes. It has to do with unoriginal class design that requires little thought.

Hatamaz wrote:
The WHM might be able to outheal the damage at first, but then he runs out of mp and hasn't widdled the DD's hp down enough while he keeps trying to heal himself through the constant barrage of DD attacks.

I just must not understand where you are going with the statistical balancing mumbo jumbo.

I like the roles. It gives each person in their certain role something that they contribute to the party.


I like the roles, too. That's why I'm saying they should stay the same. And the situation you're describing with the WHM and DD is totally plausible. I guess I'm not sure what you were trying to convey here.

It's numbers on the backend. That's it. It's invisible to you as the player, and it doesn't affect the role of your class. It's saying, "We want WHM to be a healer, but we don't want WHM to be necessary for a party to function properly. A good WHM is better to have than a bad DD, and vice versa." That has nothing to do with roles. It has to do with statistical balance.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#139 Jun 01 2013 at 10:22 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
262 posts
Kachi wrote:
"We want WHM to be a healer, but we don't want WHM to be necessary for a party to function properly.


I understand not having a whm to be necessary for a party to function, but shouldn't one of the classes/jobs stand in for the healer role for the party to function? Just like not having a pld to tank, but hey here is a war he can step in and tank for us.

Kachi wrote:
A good WHM is better to have than a bad DD, and vice versa." That has nothing to do with roles. It has to do with statistical balance.


That just sounds like player skill there instead of any statistical balance.

I think I'm just going to give up on where you're going with all of this though. I understand for PvP you want to make things as balanced as possible so that you don't have one job way overpowered over others. But as far as a healer class taking on a DD class to where they are equally geared and skilled is just mind blowing to me I guess. It just makes sense to me that as a healer in PvP my job is to keep my friends alive by healing and run like a **** from the other team's DDs that are aiming for me.

As for 1v1 my most experience with that is in DCUO. I 1v1'ed alot with a healer class against DD's. I won my fair share, but there was alot more going on than just numbers. It really depended on the player twitching at the right time with the correct move that would then stun the other player. It didn't have much to do with the fact that I was able to outheal their damage, because if I could read their moves right I would basically take no damage. But if I went up against a DD that was equal to my skill and he caught me offguard just a couple of times he would destroy me with the amount of damage he could put out. But that's a different game.

I'm trying to think about this in FF terms, but I'm having a hard time with it. I really hope that whatever PvP they put into XIV is awesome and adds something fun and fresh we can do. But I really hope they keep the balancing for PvP jobs different from PvE jobs. And no open world PvP.



#140 Jun 01 2013 at 11:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Why shouldn't the healer have potent enough healing powers that they can heal themselves effectively when stabbed by the guy with the lance?


Healers in Final Fantasy games excel at healing the party, because it's a party-oriented game. White mages may also be able to drop a couple of cures on themselves to survive a bit longer when being attacked, but a white mage simply doesn't have the defense to take too many big hits. But when the tank is controlling hate, and the DDs are minding their damage output, then the white mage has the power to sustain the tank through even the most lethal of attacks.... and that is the role/job/statistical advantage (whatever you want to call it) of the white mage... NOT individual survivability, which, if anything, is the strength of a tank or hybrid (think rdm) job.

Quote:
If you stop to think about it for more than two seconds, you'll quickly realize that there is no rational answer to this question. The healer is a healer, and so should excel at healing things, just like the lancer is good with a lance, and should excel at lancing things. No change of roles!


Again, Kachi, you are correct, but not for the reason you'd like to be correct. There is no rational answer as to why a white mage should or shouldn't be able to have total survivability against a DD. In the end, it's all a matter of choice, and it goes both ways. If we were holding this conversation in the forum for a PvP-heavy game, there may be people building virtual statues of you in Second Life. However, this is a Final Fantasy forum, and the "balance" you're describing just isn't balanced at all in our kind of game.

It's not about math, Kachi... it's about preference. People who are in this "insular little community" choose to be here because we like our games a certain way. Others may not like this, or they may not understand how inequalities provide balance. Fortunately, they can choose to play other games with different design concepts, and then everyone is happy.

Quote:
The only question is, why can't the healer heal as competently as the lancer can lance? Why can't his healing numbers be raised in accordance with the lancer's lancing numbers?


Again, white mages were never meant to excel at healing themselves and be beacons of survivability who can go toe-to-toe with DDs. That's a paladin. White mages are meant to excel at quickly and efficiently healing everyone around them, and they are just as effective doing that as a lancer is at lancing monsters.

I think the big issue here is that your definition of "balance" doesn't match up with the kind of balance the rest of us seem to want in FFXIV. You may say that we're confused, or maybe we just don't get it, but I'm pretty certain that most of us know exactly what kind of game we want to play. Hence, why we're here.

EDIT:

Quote:
It's about making sure that each class can pull its own weight without requiring a certain balance of roles. The roles are still there! They haven't changed at all! But you can win with whichever set of roles you want to, because they all bring an equal contribution to the party.


The roles/jobs/whatever in FFXIV should be balanced so that a party of all white mages will never win a significant boss battle. I hate putting words in people's mouths... but, based on your paragraph here, you seem to be saying that a party of white mages should be just as effective as a balanced party with tanks, DDs, support jobs and healers.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 10:26pm by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#141 Jun 01 2013 at 11:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
I think PVP dynamics should be the same as PVE dynamics. I see no reason for every class to be equal on a 1v1 basis, as MMOs are multiplayer games, as was said before. In world PVP, some classes should be suited for lone strike/reconnaissance/assassination roles, some suited for being front line defensive/offensive troops, some suited for supporting other classes, some suited for providing supporting offensive power, etc.

I also see no reason for every group of size N for any given N to be balanced against any other group of size N. PVP should involve strategy, and coming to the fight with a suitable group to face off your enemy (and knowing when to run when you don't have suitable backup) should be a part of that.
#142 Jun 01 2013 at 11:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
273 posts
Kachi wrote:
LebargeX wrote:
If it all balances out to zero then how do you determine a winner? Skill of the player?

But I'm teh leet rogue of d00m I should be able to slaughter this healer

But I'm teh leet healer of d00m and mom says that like Keith Richards I can't be harmed by conventional weapons.

If PvP is going to be a never ending war of attrition then I don't think that is good design. My opinion has always been that PvP should be role less because no matter your role 99 percent of people play it the same way. Run up to the closest guy throw everything you have at him until one of you dies. So why not just make a PvP job that has access to everything? Load up your skills load your weapons and just have at it. Then it's up to he players to balance out the fight not the programmers.

Stuff like this is why I usually have a distaste for PvP in general.



Is this really some revolutionary concept? That the more skilled player should be the winner? Game designers have known that nugget for decades. But moreover, it's not about who wins in PvP. It's about who "wins the invites" in PvE. It's about making sure that each class can pull its own weight without requiring a certain balance of roles. The roles are still there! They haven't changed at all! But you can win with whichever set of roles you want to, because they all bring an equal contribution to the party. If that concerns you because you imagine a scenario where parties are all DDs who just sit there wailing on the enemy with no sense of group tactics at all, then good, but that's a totally separate problem that has to do with poorly designed DDs. It has nothing to do with balancing the classes. It has to do with unoriginal class design that requires little thought.

Hatamaz wrote:
The WHM might be able to outheal the damage at first, but then he runs out of mp and hasn't widdled the DD's hp down enough while he keeps trying to heal himself through the constant barrage of DD attacks.

I just must not understand where you are going with the statistical balancing mumbo jumbo.

I like the roles. It gives each person in their certain role something that they contribute to the party.


I like the roles, too. That's why I'm saying they should stay the same. And the situation you're describing with the WHM and DD is totally plausible. I guess I'm not sure what you were trying to convey here.

It's numbers on the backend. That's it. It's invisible to you as the player, and it doesn't affect the role of your class. It's saying, "We want WHM to be a healer, but we don't want WHM to be necessary for a party to function properly. A good WHM is better to have than a bad DD, and vice versa." That has nothing to do with roles. It has to do with statistical balance.


Point #1 - Good God the NDA needs to be lifted soon so we have something else to talk about.

Point #2 - Everyone is on here making the same circular argument using different words in each new post. Bottom line, some think there should be perfect balance between jobs, some think jobs should have clearly defined rolls.

Point #3 - It's crazy how much more difficult these long posts are to read when your friend Jack Daniels comes over.

Edit:

Point #4: If you can win the same battles with or without a WHM, what would the point be of EVER choosing to be a healing class?

Edited, Jun 2nd 2013 11:21am by Parathyroid
____________________________


I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not). -Kierk
#143 Jun 01 2013 at 11:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Point #2 - Everyone is on here making the same circular argument using different words in each new post. Bottom line, some think there should be perfect balance between jobs, some think jobs should have clearly defined rolls.


Really, it all boils down to this.

Most people here (possibly everyone except for Kachi) want PvE to be built open clearly defined roles in a party.

Kachi says it's better for PvE to be built upon the principles of PvP, in which any player should have a 50 percent chance of beating any other player (skill/gear ratings/etc being equal), which means jobs have to be balanced so everyone can heal/dd/tank/etc.

There is no "correct" answer to this issue... there is only what we prefer.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 11:22pm by Thayos
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#144 Jun 02 2013 at 12:09 AM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Caution: This post may contain bluntness not suitable for all audiences.

All I've gained from this entire thread is that I never want to play a game that Kachi designs. And no, I'm not saying you design BAD games. You just don't design a style of game I'd ever want to play. I think it would be incredibly boring and the encounters would mundane. You don't need to respond with why they wouldn't be and why it would be solid engaging content. I really don't care at this point. I like the game FFXIV is going to be. With it's distinct roles and it's not completely balanced classes. I think it's fun for classes to have roles and if it makes them slightly out of balance, I'm ok with that. Yes, I'm aware your theory still keeps the classes in roles, but the more you talk about it, the more boring it sounds and the less interested I am in it.

I hope you can someday make a game like this and that people who like this philosophy will think it's great and make it successful. I personally don't like the idea, but perhaps if the game were made and I could see it in action I'd change my mind. Anything's possible. Kudos. I'm out.

Yes, I've been drinking heavily and I'm ok with that too.
#145 Jun 02 2013 at 1:01 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not).

Open world PvP doesn't appeal to me in a FF game. In other games, sure, but FF has been a group vs. monsters and in an open world environment I'd like to keep it that way.

If there is PvP, I didn't mind Balista or whatever it was called, but again I don't need to have PvP.

Though PvP does sell, and would interject a bit more longevity into the game so I'm glad it's on the table.

---

From what I gather balancing shouldn't be confused with the style of role you wish to play, but I'm having a difficult time imagining that.

I want my class to be defined and differentiated from other classes, yet, in the same group of classes or roles statistically, such as DDs I want them to be about equal in the numbers they produce?

For the sake of argument a THF does burst damage and hits a lot otherwise with small numbers; while a DRK does big chunks of damage but misses a lot. Statistically and played at the optimal level they do the same damage but still retain their "individuality."

A WHM can do the same DMG only over a longer period time against a DD, but only due to survivability through healing and other defensive abilities.

In a PvE setting the role of WHM is still healer because over time healing benefits the group more than a weak Banish.

Is this basically the premise?

---

Like other posters stated 1v1 it still seems there'll be a rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock, hierarchy.

All I can offer is anecdotes. In WoW as a rogue I loved hunting mages even though the ones that knew anything about the class would automatically "fear" me. I would in turn avoid Paladin's or other plate wearers because it was just too long of a fight...

---

I know I'm not really adding anything here, but I can't imagine how all of this is figured out on the developer's end.

In the end it's more important to me that a class has a more defined role and that role benefits the group, like a BRD's songs for example, than achieving perfect balance between the classes. It just sounds that these things have to be mutually exclusive. If they both can be achieved, then so be it. I know that GW2 was a bit innovative in this regard, but every class felt about the same and I don't know how balanced they were...

My brain hurts.
#146 Jun 02 2013 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,755 posts
Thayos wrote:
Quote:
Put a high level healer against a low level DD, done.


Oh, I thought you meant that healers and DDs of equal level should be equal in a one-on-one fight. A high-level whm surviving against a low-level DD makes more sense.


A high level healer who knows how to use their status effects and defensive stragities can take down a high level DD. It's been proven before in FFXI's own little PVP matches. Now, those fights, idealy shouldn't be 'toe to toe'. And I wouldn't expect FFXIV's White Mage to be successful as a single standing element.

The truth of the matter is, Guild Wars 2's greatest flaw in their role and balance issue is that they did not seperate their PvP and PvE battle kits.

This idea that Healers should do always poorly in PVP is just ludicrous, history in PvP has shown that aside from pure ganking, verses combat has always favored the defensive or ranged. White Mage is both. The kits are separate, but PvP and PvE kits are similar, white mage would kite the crap out of DDs with statistical effect like bind and weight. And the DD would, in effect, rely on ranged skills and gap closers to win.

I don't believe in unilateral equality, but there should always be enough room for error for a person at a disadvantage to win through luck and skillful play. One class's skill floor should never be above another class's skill ceiling. If that exists, than that's a balance issue. That's my stance on PvP.
#147 Jun 02 2013 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
****, XI's Maat fights were, in some ways, a sort of means test of all classes versus a very specific overpowered DD. White Mage could get away with simply surviving for 5 minutes, but plenty of white mages went into that fight prepared to fight and win. And they did. A good paralyze and slow on him helped a bunch. Red Mage didn't get the "just live" option, which is one reason it is considered the most difficult of the genkai 5 fights.

____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#148 Jun 02 2013 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
273 posts
Kierk wrote:
I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not).


It is now!
____________________________


I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not). -Kierk
#149 Jun 02 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Point #4: If can win the same battles with or without a WHM, what would the point be of EVER choosing to be a healing class?


Because you want to? They're good at their job, or they're your friend? Aren't those the reasons you should invite someone, rather than because they're the only available WHM?

Thayos wrote:
Quote:
Point #2 - Everyone is on here making the same circular argument using different words in each new post. Bottom line, some think there should be perfect balance between jobs, some think jobs should have clearly defined rolls.


Really, it all boils down to this.

Most people here (possibly everyone except for Kachi) want PvE to be built open clearly defined roles in a party.

Kachi says it's better for PvE to be built upon the principles of PvP, in which any player should have a 50 percent chance of beating any other player (skill/gear ratings/etc being equal), which means jobs have to be balanced so everyone can heal/dd/tank/etc.

There is no "correct" answer to this issue... there is only what we prefer.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 11:22pm by Thayos


I think you guys are getting too hung up on my 1v1 example, which as I said, was an attempt to simplify the argument. The group vs group PvP balance is much more important, but you have to start with the 1:1 class balance before you can sort that out, otherwise you end up with off-kilter "balances" like those in FFXI. Ultimately which you lean more heavily towards depends more upon whether the emphasis of your game is solo or party play.

But my point was never which you would enjoy more. It was about which method makes it easier for designers to create balanced encounters. I honestly don't trust any player to be able to answer what they would enjoy without having tried it, because they tend to not know very well (I'm going to wager that none of you have ever tried balancing a complex system). Case in point: all the people here complaining about it without even understanding that it doesn't even change the things they fear it does.

Quote:

From what I gather balancing shouldn't be confused with the style of role you wish to play, but I'm having a difficult time imagining that.

I want my class to be defined and differentiated from other classes, yet, in the same group of classes or roles statistically, such as DDs I want them to be about equal in the numbers they produce?

For the sake of argument a THF does burst damage and hits a lot otherwise with small numbers; while a DRK does big chunks of damage but misses a lot. Statistically and played at the optimal level they do the same damage but still retain their "individuality."

A WHM can do the same DMG only over a longer period time against a DD, but only due to survivability through healing and other defensive abilities.

In a PvE setting the role of WHM is still healer because over time healing benefits the group more than a weak Banish.

Is this basically the premise?


Basically, yes, you got it!

It's easier to design balanced monster encounters when you have a mathematical point of reference to start with. Otherwise, the go-to method is trial-and-error, which is a much more belabored process. When you know "a party of six players has this statistical power" you can mathematically generate a roughly equivalent monster encounter. Bearing in mind, this depends less on stats like STR/DEF/etc. than their role in the HP loss algorithms, which I think is confusing some people. It doesn't mean making WHM and DRG having the same defense/damage-dealing. It just means that in the larger game of "get their HP to 0" they have the same impact on the HP race (*not necessarily in all matchmaking cases; e.g., DRG may very well have an advantage against WHM, and WHM may perform better in certain encounters--that's all the designer's choice).
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#150 Jun 02 2013 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
273 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Point #4: If can win the same battles with or without a WHM, what would the point be of EVER choosing to be a healing class?


Because you want to? They're good at their job, or they're your friend? Aren't those the reasons you should invite someone, rather than because they're the only available WHM?

Thayos wrote:
Quote:
Point #2 - Everyone is on here making the same circular argument using different words in each new post. Bottom line, some think there should be perfect balance between jobs, some think jobs should have clearly defined rolls.


Really, it all boils down to this.

Most people here (possibly everyone except for Kachi) want PvE to be built open clearly defined roles in a party.

Kachi says it's better for PvE to be built upon the principles of PvP, in which any player should have a 50 percent chance of beating any other player (skill/gear ratings/etc being equal), which means jobs have to be balanced so everyone can heal/dd/tank/etc.

There is no "correct" answer to this issue... there is only what we prefer.

Edited, Jun 1st 2013 11:22pm by Thayos


I think you guys are getting too hung up on my 1v1 example, which as I said, was an attempt to simplify the argument. The group vs group PvP balance is much more important, but you have to start with the 1:1 class balance before you can sort that out, otherwise you end up with off-kilter "balances" like those in FFXI. Ultimately which you lean more heavily towards depends more upon whether the emphasis of your game is solo or party play.

But my point was never which you would enjoy more. It was about which method makes it easier for designers to create balanced encounters. I honestly don't trust any player to be able to answer what they would enjoy without having tried it, because they tend to not know very well (I'm going to wager that none of you have ever tried balancing a complex system). Case in point: all the people here complaining about it without even understanding that it doesn't even change the things they fear it does.

Quote:

From what I gather balancing shouldn't be confused with the style of role you wish to play, but I'm having a difficult time imagining that.

I want my class to be defined and differentiated from other classes, yet, in the same group of classes or roles statistically, such as DDs I want them to be about equal in the numbers they produce?

For the sake of argument a THF does burst damage and hits a lot otherwise with small numbers; while a DRK does big chunks of damage but misses a lot. Statistically and played at the optimal level they do the same damage but still retain their "individuality."

A WHM can do the same DMG only over a longer period time against a DD, but only due to survivability through healing and other defensive abilities.

In a PvE setting the role of WHM is still healer because over time healing benefits the group more than a weak Banish.

Is this basically the premise?


Basically, yes, you got it!

It's easier to design balanced monster encounters when you have a mathematical point of reference to start with. Otherwise, the go-to method is trial-and-error, which is a much more belabored process. When you know "a party of six players has this statistical power" you can mathematically generate a roughly equivalent monster encounter. Bearing in mind, this depends less on stats like STR/DEF/etc. than their role in the HP loss algorithms, which I think is confusing some people. It doesn't mean making WHM and DRG having the same defense/damage-dealing. It just means that in the larger game of "get their HP to 0" they have the same impact on the HP race (*not necessarily in all matchmaking cases; e.g., DRG may very well have an advantage against WHM, and WHM may perform better in certain encounters--that's all the designer's choice).


Dude I like you, and I think you are very intelligent so I don't want to get on your or anyone's bad side here...

But I don't think anyone's getting hung up on the 1v1 idea... I feel like everyone just thinks the type of gameplay you've described is entirely unappealing. It's pretty much as simple as that.

With that said, I think your ideas would be loved by other types of gamers, but it's certainly not going to fly with a bunch of FF fans.
____________________________


I probably understood about 1/10th of what was discussed in this thread and I'm sober as a rope. (I don't know if that's actually a saying or not). -Kierk
#151 Jun 02 2013 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Parathyroid wrote:
Dude I like you, and I think you are very intelligent so I don't want to get on your or anyone's bad side here...

But I don't think anyone's getting hung up on the 1v1 idea... I feel like everyone just thinks the type of gameplay you've described is entirely unappealing. It's pretty much as simple as that.

With that said, I think your ideas would be loved by other types of gamers, but it's certainly not going to fly with a bunch of FF fans.


Smiley: nod
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 108 All times are in CDT
Fynlar, Anonymous Guests (107)