Tree of Savior Forum

Class X-Y-Z is OP: Balance Philosophy?

Class and Rank
#1

With the game set to open the floodgates to lots of prospective players within a few days one interaction is near inevitable when you have different people playing a game of this scale: We all love to point out our differences to each other! (For better or for worse)

One issue that is sure to crop up is the perceived difference in strength between one person’s avatar and another’s.

There will be nerfs and there will be buffs but more importantly there is the reasoning behind these changes. What general values and policies should underlie balance changes? Survival of the fittest? Fun? Utilitarianism? (Greatest lump sum of happiness)? Something else?

In many cases balance in games can loosely be defined as “Who morally deserves to win?”

I would argue for that which makes a game most attractive: Something to strive for regardless of who you are; The most hard-working, skillful, fast and intelligent ought generally to be more successful even if it is only within the confines of a game. What this would translate to game-wise would that someone that is constantly watching their position, counting their opponents cooldowns and otherwise are able to understand, anticipate and react to their opponent generally should not lose to someone that presses three buttons.

Regardless we all have different cultural backgrounds and thus morals. “Who morally deserves to win?” would probably be very different if someone were to ask this to two different people.

“Who morally deserves to win?” What do you think and why?

#2

It is closed beta, it is not open yet. Half of the classes are not ready.
Maybe in a year or half they will work on balancing in open beta.

#3

I never said it was “open” however there will be lots of prospective players --> potential customers that will get their first taste of the game in a few days time.

I don’t think it can ever be too early or late to talk about “whydunnit.” (peoples’ motives) In this case, the motivation and reasoning behind game balance.

#4

It is too early when they are still redoing skills, removing skills, adding skills, shuffling around and so forth.

#5

What do the redoing of skills, removing skills, adding skills and shuffling around of skills have to do with the motivation and values behind balance? One is the concrete numbers set in the game and the other is by and far more abstract - people’s values.

Edit: Grammar

#6

Real class balance is impossible.

#7

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

#8

Whatever is the most fun to do should be what wins you games. Nobody wants to win as a result of doing something boring (spam to win). They’ll eventually get bored and move onto something else.

Then there’s the problem of “Everyone is playing X, X must be op.” Well no. X might just be more fun. If X is winning, then that is actually good for the game’s long term health. Well what about balance? You provide checks and counters. Make sure it has a few bad match ups. It’s okay if it’s centralizing if it’s fun.

“Well, I hate losing to X.” Are you sure it’s not just, “I hate losing”? You might say the same thing about the next thing that becomes OP after X gets changed. If X is truly unfun to play against, find out if the variables that make it that way match up with what makes it fun to play. Remember, it must be fun to play, not fun to win. Those who judge fun must be impartial to wins and losses. I don’t have a closing sentence but I gtg so I’ll leave it at that.

#9

I think part of the attraction of this game is the ability to find ridiculously effective class comboes thus the one who deserves to win would be the one that put the most effort into making their different classes synergise.

Having said that i’m not a fan of lack of counterplay in games; there is a few classes in game right now where you cannot fight them in pvp no matter how good you are because they possess a skill that renders you unable to act till death, stuff like this makes balancing vital.

Despite that, imc games appears to be balancing around pve rather than pvp, so it doesn’t really matter to me how overpowered a class is against monsters.

#10

I agree with your philosophy of “if you work harder and try harder, you should be rewarded”.

In theory that would be best but in reality it’s actually quite tough to pull of if you have more and more content/classes added into a game.

It’s not healthy for a game to have classes with massive skill ceilings that reward players tremendously should they succeed. Throwing imaginary numbers out there, you can’t have a class that requires 200 inputs within a few seconds and be rewarded with dealing 50% of the boss’ HP in that time compared to your honest to heart generic warrior who’s maximum input would never exceed 50 dealing only a moderate amount of damage. It would drive all the attention to said class and nobody would want to play swordsman. But at the same time it’s hard to justify a class that would require 200 inputs within a few seconds should they not be massively rewarded for their effort if in the case you toned down their damage.

#11

One of the problems I would have to note with finding class synergy is that information is more or less superfluous nowadays; When someone finds a build all they’ll have is the original claim of ownership - everyone and their grandparents will know about it even if the “original” keeps to themselves.

Despite how much darn fun build and theory crafting is I would have to argue that it needs to have lower priority than understanding, skill and speed. It definitely should have a large part in the game with the current plans for 80 classes.
Perhaps a desirable framework for balance would go along the lines of:

  1. Skill (AGI): I would define this as familiarity or rather the ability to apply knowledge and experience to the game.
  2. Understanding (SPR?): Knowing your own class and your opponents class: how it plays, what works and what doesn’t work. Also understanding/“game-theorying” your opponent to death by anticipating their actions.
  3. Speed (AGI): How fast someone can act or react to a situation.
  4. Intelligence/knowledge (INT)? I would have to question the importance of this - again with how readily available almost all information is though this might fit into understanding.

Is there anything else? I may as well have taken the mains stats from the game itself except strength and constitution. Am I arguing for a game that favors mages and archers? D;