![Officer [Gold Rank]](./images/ranks/officer3.png "Officer [Gold Rank]")
You know, balance is a funny thing...what is balanced to one person may not be balanced to another. No matter what Basilisk tweaks or doesn't tweak not everyone will be happy. So the question is...how far to go with this? Do you want him to spend the next few months going back and forth with things people find unbalanced or move on to work on book 2 taking note of what people had problems with on book 1?
I know one area in book 1 that probably people feel like it needs the most looking at and that is high level spells everything else seems to be just about right....although you cul argue theives and fighters do not have many specailized skills etc...but I think those are things that may be a book2 thing more then a fix for book 1.
Just my two cents though...
Character Balancing
Again, why? Why must each and every mechanic follow the same rules? Why must each skill be linear in progression? In fact, that seems rather boring to me. I like that the skill system is quirky in that old school way. It makes it more interesting. In my mind, wanting all the mechanics to be consistent is an arbitrary desire. You can have a fun and sufficiently balanced game without all related mechanics following exactly the same rules.Sq wrote:Even if the game doesn't have strict archetyping/classes, it still needs its internal mechanics to be consistent.
The pivotal word there is "optimal". If you mean "can have a reasonably fun time with", then we're saying the same thing. If you mean "can achieve some arbitrary level of power in the game, especially when compared to other builds", then, again, this is academic. Who cares? If the customer can make a reasonable build and generally have fun, what does it matter if it meets some outside test of being "optimal" as defined by the Double Secret Society of The Only Right Way to Make a Character Development System?quasius wrote:that are concerned with having optimal characters while playing the archetype they want. That's the genesis of these entire "balance" discussions.
In either case, your prescription of making the class system more rigid is still unecessary. A few tweaks to a couple of values in the formulae behind the scenes is probably all that's needed to buff up the weaker archetypes. No need to get all crazy and re-tool the skill and class systems.
Because, as I already said, you are only looking at your definition of "fun" here.chamr wrote: The pivotal word there is "optimal". If you mean "can have a reasonably fun time with", then we're saying the same thing. If you mean "can achieve some arbitrary level of power in the game, especially when compared to other builds", then, again, this is academic. Who cares? If the customer can make a reasonable build and generally have fun, what does it matter if it meets some outside test of being "optimal" as defined by the Double Secret Society of The Only Right Way to Make a Character Development System?
In either case, your prescription of making the class system more rigid is still unecessary. A few tweaks to a couple of values in the formulae behind the scenes is probably all that's needed to buff up the weaker archetypes. No need to get all crazy and re-tool the skill and class systems.
Either casters or fighters can easily finish this game and get "destroyer." So your criteria for "fun" is met no matter what you do. Awesome. You're deriving fun from the experience. A lot of people derive fun from "winning." In this case, that means having a bad-ass character. What do you think is up with all the "look at my awesome end-game character, guys!" posts? Unfortunately no one can play a straight warrior and "win" since a mage who can cast buffs is nearly strictly better. (The fact that they are both viable is irrelevant.) This problem causes some people not to have fun, even if you don't think it's a problem.
Ahhh... it's as I feared. You're talking about Power Gamming. You want the game balanced so that power gamers can "win" against each other with a variety of builds in a virtual PvP via posting final character stats on a forum. Hmmm....quasius wrote:You're deriving fun from the experience. A lot of people derive fun from "winning." In this case, that means having a bad-ass character. What do you think is up with all the "look at my awesome end-game character, guys!" posts? Unfortunately no one can play a straight warrior and "win" since a mage who can cast buffs is nearly strictly better. (The fact that they are both viable is irrelevant.) This problem causes some people not to have fun, even if you don't think it's a problem.
Methinks you don't quite understand the vision behind Eschalon and how it is fundamentally at odds with Power Gamming. Asking Tom to twist his game around so that it satisfies a Diablo 2-type of power character ego competition is patently absurd, IMHO. As far as I can tell, Eschalon never has been nor will it ever be about Power Gamming.
Edit: Nevermind. Post nuked. This is pointless.
Edit Edit for a short version: This has nothing to do with become Diablo 2 or any other game. "Power gaming" has existed is every game ever made ever.
*Some people just want an experience and don't care about "winning." That's you.
*Other people care about winning most. Those people are making the uber mage-warriors and are happy about it.
*Other people care about winning, but only on their terms. They want to be able to make a "mage," "warrior," "paladin," whatever and still "win" or come close to it. These people are unhappy right now and are the reasons there were so many complains leading up to this thread.
No game designer can afford to ignore any of these 3 types of gamers. The fact that you are the first one and are satisfied is great, but this thread isn't for you.
Edit Edit for a short version: This has nothing to do with become Diablo 2 or any other game. "Power gaming" has existed is every game ever made ever.
*Some people just want an experience and don't care about "winning." That's you.
*Other people care about winning most. Those people are making the uber mage-warriors and are happy about it.
*Other people care about winning, but only on their terms. They want to be able to make a "mage," "warrior," "paladin," whatever and still "win" or come close to it. These people are unhappy right now and are the reasons there were so many complains leading up to this thread.
No game designer can afford to ignore any of these 3 types of gamers. The fact that you are the first one and are satisfied is great, but this thread isn't for you.
I will begin with an apology for not having read all ofthe previous posts before responding, I know that the regulars here will find that annoyiing. However, as I just joined (this is my third post) and I don't have time to read 4 pages of posts...I tried, really, got thru the whole first page...so I hope I don't repeat what someone else has said.
I'm one of only 2 who voted for spell casters being too powerful. Why? It's simple really. I have 2 games running, one as a fighter one as a cleric. With the fighter I was always getting my @$$ kicked at the lower levels even though I had good stats. It was a pain in the @$$ aquiring the various weapon skills and or better equipment, things progressed very slowly.
My cleric type started out with the "fleshboil" spell. Kicked @$$ from the very beginning. Rarely did an enemy get within melee range, and when they did it only took one hit to kill them. Now, as he's getting into higher levels/more difficult areas enemies are resisting his spells much more. But...he's had time to acquire better fighting skills and equipment and thus still defeats things more easily than did my straight fighter.
As a result of this, I acquired spell casting abilities for my fighter, both divination and elemental and he's almost unstoppable. Being able to pause the action while changing equipment makes this too easy. I kept good mage stuff and cleric stuff when I found it and so I switch outfits 2-4 times during any given combat sequence. Example, wandering a dungeon: I start off exploring wearing a rogue type outfit and have cast "cats' eyes" and "predator sight." Wait, there's some goblins! I put on the wizard's hat and divine cloak for a quick spell boost, then on goes the fighter outfit, bow weapon first then big@$$ sword once in meelee.
Things are actually fairly well balanced between the classes, really. What imbalances things is the ability to stop and change outfits in the middle of battle. I have, however, found it easier to crosstrain as a fighter starting as a caster than vice versa.
I'm one of only 2 who voted for spell casters being too powerful. Why? It's simple really. I have 2 games running, one as a fighter one as a cleric. With the fighter I was always getting my @$$ kicked at the lower levels even though I had good stats. It was a pain in the @$$ aquiring the various weapon skills and or better equipment, things progressed very slowly.
My cleric type started out with the "fleshboil" spell. Kicked @$$ from the very beginning. Rarely did an enemy get within melee range, and when they did it only took one hit to kill them. Now, as he's getting into higher levels/more difficult areas enemies are resisting his spells much more. But...he's had time to acquire better fighting skills and equipment and thus still defeats things more easily than did my straight fighter.
As a result of this, I acquired spell casting abilities for my fighter, both divination and elemental and he's almost unstoppable. Being able to pause the action while changing equipment makes this too easy. I kept good mage stuff and cleric stuff when I found it and so I switch outfits 2-4 times during any given combat sequence. Example, wandering a dungeon: I start off exploring wearing a rogue type outfit and have cast "cats' eyes" and "predator sight." Wait, there's some goblins! I put on the wizard's hat and divine cloak for a quick spell boost, then on goes the fighter outfit, bow weapon first then big@$$ sword once in meelee.
Things are actually fairly well balanced between the classes, really. What imbalances things is the ability to stop and change outfits in the middle of battle. I have, however, found it easier to crosstrain as a fighter starting as a caster than vice versa.
-
BasiliskWrangler
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: July 6th, 2006, 10:31 am
- Location: The Grid
- Contact:
Okay, let's bring this discussion back into focus people.
What I see here is that while many people enjoy the game the way it is, an equal number of people feel it needs balanced in some direction. I have also received several emails on this from people commenting on what is right and wrong with Book I, so this thread is only part of what I am focusing on.
We clearly didn't get it perfect, but yet people also enjoy the game enough to defend it as is. Others attack it, although only out of desire to see it improve it along the lines of what they want out of an RPG. Ultimately, I am very happy to see so many fans who are passionate enough about the game to want to see it the series succeed.
I still go back to saying that people who are very good at character development have an easier time playing than people who are new to RPGs. Very good RPGers are saying it's too easy; novice players are telling me it's frustratingly hard. Along those lines, it's difficult to accept balance suggestions from players who have hex-edited their character. How can we balance something that you purposely broke?
We will be adding a lot of new elements to the next game, but the number one lesson learned here is that every skill and spell needs meticulously charted out to be balanced. We need to look at all Skills and Spells, from min to max, and balance their functions in relation to each other throughout the development path. We weren't that far off with Book I, but we have discovered that a few inconsistencies can lead to major issues for some players.
How much fixing can be done to Book I? I don't know, although I'm sure a few tweaks can be made that would please most of you. However large-scale changes may have to wait until Book II.
Thank you all for your input.
What I see here is that while many people enjoy the game the way it is, an equal number of people feel it needs balanced in some direction. I have also received several emails on this from people commenting on what is right and wrong with Book I, so this thread is only part of what I am focusing on.
We clearly didn't get it perfect, but yet people also enjoy the game enough to defend it as is. Others attack it, although only out of desire to see it improve it along the lines of what they want out of an RPG. Ultimately, I am very happy to see so many fans who are passionate enough about the game to want to see it the series succeed.
I still go back to saying that people who are very good at character development have an easier time playing than people who are new to RPGs. Very good RPGers are saying it's too easy; novice players are telling me it's frustratingly hard. Along those lines, it's difficult to accept balance suggestions from players who have hex-edited their character. How can we balance something that you purposely broke?
We will be adding a lot of new elements to the next game, but the number one lesson learned here is that every skill and spell needs meticulously charted out to be balanced. We need to look at all Skills and Spells, from min to max, and balance their functions in relation to each other throughout the development path. We weren't that far off with Book I, but we have discovered that a few inconsistencies can lead to major issues for some players.
How much fixing can be done to Book I? I don't know, although I'm sure a few tweaks can be made that would please most of you. However large-scale changes may have to wait until Book II.
Thank you all for your input.
Actually, I think we've gotten to the heart of the matter. You think the game balance should support power gamers for the sake of reaching a broader audience. I think that doing so would compromise one of the core principles of the design. So I, for one, think our back-and-forth has been productive, even with the snarkiness.quasius wrote:Edit: Nevermind. Post nuked. This is pointless.
I just used a hex editor to skip the clicking-on-dice minigame. I actually gave myself a set of stats much less than what some of the people posting in the "super roll" thread had. I think they totaled 95.BasiliskWrangler wrote:Along those lines, it's difficult to accept balance suggestions from players who have hex-edited their character. How can we balance something that you purposely broke?
But please avoid things like the "balancing" in oblivion. Part of the fun/challenge of oldschool rpgs is that it CAN be hard, but there is always a possibility to get around that, within the games context. (go somewhere else and get better, think a little to use your skills better, get better equipement and so on)BasiliskWrangler wrote: We will be adding a lot of new elements to the next game, but the number one lesson learned here is that every skill and spell needs meticulously charted out to be balanced. We need to look at all Skills and Spells, from min to max, and balance their functions in relation to each other throughout the development path. We weren't that far off with Book I, but we have discovered that a few inconsistencies can lead to major issues for some players.
I know you have to make the game accessible for more players which means that more will buy it. But keep in challenges!
How about an option for difficulty level?
New players can try out the easy mode, while experienced players get more challenges.
I don't think there's any real disbalance, although I've never played any pure melee specialist, only rogue-bowman-mage type, so can't be too sure.
Having said that, I'd actually want to bump up high-level spells damage, or mana pool, or both. High-level specialist casters should probably be able to take on a huge pack of enemies without resorting to running away to have some sleep. I haven't been through the game with my caster type, so I don't know if there is any powerful stunning spell. That one could be useful too, like Daze being a key element of Agent tactics in Geneforge. And Sonic wave is only good against salamanders and slime, wasps and thugs resist it too well, so I'm not even talking about someone really tough. I don't think changing mana regen cap is any good, it's fast enough, huge pool + use of potions are more fun. And, to make me use potions more, i'd heavily restrict sleeping in dungeons.
This is not about balance though, these are my thoughts on how to prevent some annoying metagaming like sleeping after every battle, using terrain to make a fool of monster AI and split a monster pack into easily disposable groops and using saveload magic if you are critical and the only way to save your life is to stun that ugly.
As for Book 2 suggestions, I like Loriac's point the most. I'd better introduce different skillpoint cost instead of some skills maxing out at level 10, some at 20 and some at 30, but that's not critical. Really, having Move Silently and Hide in Shadows separated gives a game such an authentic feel, but makes stealth cost twice as much as swordfighting does, that's unfair! Some rebalancing of buff spells as per his suggestion is also good, so the non-magical fighter, a cleric type that buffs up and fights and a sorcerer type that relies on offensive spells are more or less equal. Book 1 seems to be too generous to generalist(or too strict to specialists if you look the other way).
Some people oppose this point saying the idea of archetypes is completely against the ideas that lie behind eschalon. I don't think it's about archetypes, though, it's about allowing specialist builds to really excel in their area. Book 1 archers are a good example: they really rock when hunting in the woods, but when it comes to a dungeon exploration, they are severely handicapped. As of now, there's no reason not to get some levels in elemental and use predator sight. Then you might want to pick locks, magically heal, fight barehanded and end up a generalist. To add some weight to this decision, I'd give something really excellent to the characters that save skill points for only a chosen number of skills and reach highest mastery levels in them, so that outweights their disability in other areas.
Having said that, I'd actually want to bump up high-level spells damage, or mana pool, or both. High-level specialist casters should probably be able to take on a huge pack of enemies without resorting to running away to have some sleep. I haven't been through the game with my caster type, so I don't know if there is any powerful stunning spell. That one could be useful too, like Daze being a key element of Agent tactics in Geneforge. And Sonic wave is only good against salamanders and slime, wasps and thugs resist it too well, so I'm not even talking about someone really tough. I don't think changing mana regen cap is any good, it's fast enough, huge pool + use of potions are more fun. And, to make me use potions more, i'd heavily restrict sleeping in dungeons.
This is not about balance though, these are my thoughts on how to prevent some annoying metagaming like sleeping after every battle, using terrain to make a fool of monster AI and split a monster pack into easily disposable groops and using saveload magic if you are critical and the only way to save your life is to stun that ugly.
As for Book 2 suggestions, I like Loriac's point the most. I'd better introduce different skillpoint cost instead of some skills maxing out at level 10, some at 20 and some at 30, but that's not critical. Really, having Move Silently and Hide in Shadows separated gives a game such an authentic feel, but makes stealth cost twice as much as swordfighting does, that's unfair! Some rebalancing of buff spells as per his suggestion is also good, so the non-magical fighter, a cleric type that buffs up and fights and a sorcerer type that relies on offensive spells are more or less equal. Book 1 seems to be too generous to generalist(or too strict to specialists if you look the other way).
Some people oppose this point saying the idea of archetypes is completely against the ideas that lie behind eschalon. I don't think it's about archetypes, though, it's about allowing specialist builds to really excel in their area. Book 1 archers are a good example: they really rock when hunting in the woods, but when it comes to a dungeon exploration, they are severely handicapped. As of now, there's no reason not to get some levels in elemental and use predator sight. Then you might want to pick locks, magically heal, fight barehanded and end up a generalist. To add some weight to this decision, I'd give something really excellent to the characters that save skill points for only a chosen number of skills and reach highest mastery levels in them, so that outweights their disability in other areas.
Consider it from the point of view of a new player, one who just reads the manual and then heads off to play. This is an old-school RPG, so without being told otherwise the player will assume skills and attributes operate under the basic idea that more = better. And the majority of the stats do follow this rule. But there are inconsistencies, especially along the mage/warrior split, which in turn has lead to these threads about which "class" is "weaker" or "stronger".chamr wrote:Again, why? Why must each and every mechanic follow the same rules? Why must each skill be linear in progression? In fact, that seems rather boring to me. I like that the skill system is quirky in that old school way. It makes it more interesting. In my mind, wanting all the mechanics to be consistent is an arbitrary desire. You can have a fun and sufficiently balanced game without all related mechanics following exactly the same rules.Sq wrote:Even if the game doesn't have strict archetyping/classes, it still needs its internal mechanics to be consistent.
I'm not saying the current system is broken - it is definitely fun and workable once you understand the "quirks". But the inconsistency in the way some skills and attributes are handled leads to irregular progression and glass ceilings, which in turn leads to player confusion about why his or her character is not advancing as expected - and this is what needs to be avoided. For Book II, the inconsistent stats that do not have their mechanics brought into line should at least have their behaviour made more clear to the player (ie., "Alchemy does not follow the normal skill progression...").
So what you guys are saying is, there should be consistancy among skills as they go up.
I agree with this as well, wth book 2 it might be an idea to split subclasses of the skills off as they go up so you know exactly what you are training which will allow specialization...would you agree with this?
I agree with this as well, wth book 2 it might be an idea to split subclasses of the skills off as they go up so you know exactly what you are training which will allow specialization...would you agree with this?
That's a good point, Sq. But I'd suggest an out-of-game method for addressing that: a more robust user's manual. If all the skill progression tables were made available to the player so that they understood what they were getting into when they chose a particular skill path, that would deal with this particular problem.Sq wrote:Consider it from the point of view of a new player, one who just reads the manual and then heads off to play. This is an old-school RPG, so without being told otherwise the player will assume skills and attributes operate under the basic idea that more = better. And the majority of the stats do follow this rule. But there are inconsistencies, especially along the mage/warrior split, which in turn has lead to these threads about which "class" is "weaker" or "stronger".
To me, a large part of the fun of old school RPG's is figuring out the development system and then playing around with it. The current cRPG's that flatten out char development too much in the name of balancing and ease of use take away that fun for me. When I play those games, I can't escape the feeling that it really doesn't matter where I spend my skill points or how I develop my character because it's not going to significantly affect my gameplay experience. It will just make me more powerful in a generic kind of way.