What does "balance" in Lusternia entail?

The meaning of this term - which gets thrown around a lot - isn't particularly clear, and as a result, amongst other things, classes are left out in the cold.

I've already mentioned this here before, but that phenomenon is a small though relevant symptom of a larger problem. Let's assume that balance on a basic level means that every class should have a fair chance of beating every other class in solo combat assuming you both have tritrans guild skills and your most optimal guild spec. I used to believe that each skillchoice within a guild should be balanced too, but with the variety some guilds have I don't think this position is tenable anymore. In a way this makes matters simpler than trying to balance all classes and skillchoices because if someone with hexes routinely beats the stuffing out of someone of the same class with astrology and they're of about equal skill, you don't have to try and fiddle with astrology to make it better in solo combat than hexes AND upgrade hexes to have useful utility applications and basically just blur everything together. We might also assume that you'd need an equivalent level of non-guild skills to deal with each guild - warriors often claim that you should have to have trans resilience and combat to deal with them properly (or that trans resilience and combat let you deal with them too handily) but the same standards aren't applied to, say, druids. Thus, compared to defence against a warrior, being an omnitrans person against a druid is not significantly better than being tritrans. Yes I am aware that this doesn't apply exactly as described in reality, but you can see general trends in this sort of thing.

The fact is that no one is able (and I don't know if they should be) to assume that the above description is what they should be balancing around. As a result the envoy system seems to be a messy patchwork of upgrading guilds who see themselves as having "weak skills" and downgrading (rarely, because people fight very hard not to get their own stuff nerfed unless skills from other orgs are nerfed in compensation) skills that are too strong in the hopes of achieving some kind of equilibrium. Guild roles in terms of group combat and utility are even worse-defined because the only thing they have to go off for identity are the skills being changed in the first place. There's this general conception that "druids should lose outside of their demesne" or "bards should be support in team combat" or something that sometimes gets adhered to and sometimes doesn't depending on the envoys involved, skills in question and the time of the high tide in Selsey.

Making matters worse is, again, the envoy system. I don't know where to put the responsibility for this so I'll just make the disclaimer that envoys should not be pouncing all over me for disparaging their efforts (which I'm sure are worthwhile at least half the time.) The problem is mainly twofold: between the fact that people don't know what they're meant to be balancing around and the fact that the envoy system is set up not to allow for major changes, either because they get bogged down with bias, coding restrictions (hi choke fix! bye darkmoon/ancestralspirit) or because there simply isn't room to do it in one envoy slot, stuff just does not get fixed at a certain important level. For starters, not all envoy changes even get -submitted-. Only a certain amount per RL month (that's a looong time) do. Secondly, it's not like large changes can logistically fit in the system. If we wanted to change, say, spiritsinger solo combat from being obnoxious and inevitability-based (keep pixiedust up and fetish over and over until they run out of tiredness value and "lose the game") each relevant song and so on would have to be changed individually, probably once a month at best - leaving the class generally in limbo for that interim period since there's no real coordination as a result of the lack of direction for balance.

Despite the fact that what I just described is probably due to an issue of manpower - the admin simply not being able to field the resources to deal with problems and balances issues effectively on a good time scale ("better than other IRE's timescale" is not necessarily good enough) I think a lot of stuff could be cleared up by the admin letting us know what they're trying to achieve - especially if they're willing to negotiate on that, though the prospects of that as a general policy going through are probably not that good simply because Estarra has more experience than most of us in running a game.

Once we know how things are supposed to be balanced, things will become more balanced. It's not like it'll solve issues like trueheal vs. lich or whatever, but it'll be a good start.

P.S Poor writing style my fault, poor formatting notepad's fault.

Brits, obviously, have poor writing skill.

Otherwise, I agree with what he says.

Hypothetically, I guess you can 'ask' the other envoys to coordinate with you. You can synthesize all those incremental changes and keep the class/guild out of limbo, but even then, that depends on if the envoys themselves are willing. The only thing they're required to make big focused suggestions on are in reports such as the Bard/Monk ones. Otherwise, the slots are their own.

You could always poof away with the envoy system, too, and become like the rest of IRE. Have a 'council' that makes 'changes' every 3-4 months, where the changes are all combined and make a significant tilt to a classes' balance.

(Actually, now that I look back at it, the incremental changes are what cause a lot of pain. It happens over periods of RL months that we don't quite realize the culminating effects of all the changes until we run into the proverbial 'omg op' brick wall. Read: Bards, monks.)

Lets delete all the skillsets and start over with new admin designed stuff. After 3 years of bitching on forums, maybe things would be done different (shadowdancers wouldn't be designed around choke so choke could be removed, astrologers wouldn't be based on the now fairly blah damage resistance, all orgs would have comparable rez/death avoidance skills, bards and monks could be completely different then they are now, mages/druids can have something that isn't demesnes, etc). It would undo tons of inconsistent patchwork changes, and remove tons of stuff that no one likes.

Well, I can dream.

This is a question that I have thought about as well and the time has long past for it to be explored in depth. It can not be denied that balance is not something that can be achieved easily in a world filled with so many variables, but are we truly moving towards that goal rather than away from it. In truth, does it even seem that balance is major consideration at this time?

For a long while, it has not seemed that way to me; changes have flowed down from the top of the summit and diverged from a straight path before reaching the valley. On one hand, there have been times when it was clear that we were moving closer to the goal, while on the other hand it was also apparent that the distance was stretching out ever further. Nejii brought one of primary causes behind this occurrence when he spoke of the lack of clear definition of what type of balance should be sought. It is obvious however that differing opinions and strict standards for what can be brought to the table and what can not have placed an obstacle firmly in the path of advancement.

Interesting enough, this problem seems originate and fester in the very place where it should be resolved. Envoys should not be restricted in what aspects of the game they can discuss or how many suggestions they can make. The only limitation on the process should be the requirement for logical argument and supporting evidence for why changes are necessary.

It can be said that the reason for the limitations is to lessen the work load of the administration, as was also brought earlier in this thread, but it does not require much effort to consider arguments and evaluate their merits. If the message resonates, it can be addressed at a later point when resources allow it, but actually giving serious thought to the matter beforehand is absolutely essential.

I really only have two gripes with the envoy system. One is the veto, which is a necessary evil until someone comes up with a better idea, and the other is the lack of admin to envoy communication. We sent out a report, sometimes it turns up the way we expect it to.

Now, what's balance? If you ask me, balance is the ability for every archetype and skill choice to contribute equally to the outcome of a battle with equal preparation and expenditure. That's what justifies astrology and hexes being choices when they both do such different things. That's why demesne summon and wisp needed to die. That's why sap should probably be replaced with something new altogether. That's why bards, especially Cantors, are overpowered.

The big problem is that this assumes both group and solo combat, and the theory has always been to balance around arena duels--balance for single combat, ignore material costs, higher time costs for some than others, and so on. Another big problem is the relatively low Lusternian playerbase. Not every archetype and skill choice is available at any given moment. This ain't WoW, where you ask over market for healers and tanks. You have to assume every class will be expected to stand largely alone against any other class.

The Really Big Issue™ is how much player skill and player mindset factor into the outcome of a battle. Crunchy numbers are of relatively little worth. (I plugged numbers once showing that the overall rate of affliction stacking versus curing was better for hexes without aeon than runes with sap--believe me, no one cared or listened.) It isn't a DIKU MUD, where you just put damage per second, healing per second, damage mitigation, and survivability on a nice little chart. Is the way sap messes with your healing worth the decreased affliction rate compared to wiccans, no matter how perfect your offense is? Maybe, maybe not. How much real affliction potential are system-breaking illusions worth, and are bards, mages, and dreamweavers all paying that price appropriately? Does the fact that Forren's system handles 90% of illusions perfectly and Palisade and Murphster pick up the last 10% between the two of them mean that illusions are actually worthless? If they're actually worthless, can they be taken out? How much is stun worth versus aeon, blackout, or a proning aff? Does the difficulty in pulling off certain things matter?

No one's going to answer those questions. Ever. Balance will always be a little crude because of it.

Good points Xavius, especially vis. illusions in the last paragraph. I definitely don't think the issue is sufficiently blurry to warrant the complete lack of communication and direction we've had on this kind of thing though. For example, ask anyone if things should be able to "contribute equally to the outcome of a battle with equal preparation and expenditure" and what you'll get instead is probably more like "yes for contribute equally and require equal expenditure, but ___ diversity ___ doesn't all have to be the same ___ makes up for it in power" with the last bit vis preparation, if their guild doesn't require a lot of it. That or they won't care. In any case, balance corresponding to that statement there is blatantly wildly off the mark, which indicates to me that it's not a commonly-used principle when balancing things. Admin direction on that would help.

Balancing for group combat has been similarly messy because what tends to happen is that general group-balance disparity stays just fine, but individual abilities like demesne summon get nerfed over time (or occasionally buffed to a similar level if a sneaky envoy can catch the others when they're distracted by someone else, I'm not going to spark up the argument by naming them though.)

Rather than just being a problem of admin to envoy communication, it's a case of admin to everyone communication. Since it's so blurry as to how things -should- be looking it's harder for fair-minded people to pin down where things are ugly and correct them or suggest alternatives. It makes it far too easy on the people who want to bog stuff down in mindless rhetoric.

I just want to point out that Nejii is incredibly wrong about something, even for him.

The number of changes we get in a RL month is HUGE compared to another other mud. Look at the classlead system in achaea? It's bloody terrible and slow. The envoys here have a pretty decent job to do, and not only that but envoys aren't perfect either.

Imagine if we put in 12 things to get changes every 2 weeks? FFS the admin are overworked enough. anyone else think Nejii is a closet sadist?

I already covered this one. Comparing something to Achaea is pointless if it's still not fast enough. I also noted that the speed thing is at least partly understandable since the admin simply don't have enough staff to work at a decent pace. I don't necessarily blame them for that, it just exacerbates the problem caused by the lack of communication because it makes coordinating long-term larger changes take up lots of other people's envoy space and thus not really going to happen, plus it leaves things all wonky in the months-long interim period.

I'm aware that in Achaea this interim period would take a year, but that doesn't make the existing thing not a problem. Also I'm told that in places like Imperian huge changes happen in that huge period rather than the comparatively much more minor changes we get here.

I have a sneaking suspicion Murphy wrote this post just so he could put "Nejii is incredibly wrong ... even for him ..." but it seems like a misconception that might crop up again so I may as well address it.

Nah i genuinely felt the need to address what you said about the envoy speed. Don't forget the admin like to take babysteps here to get closer to balance, rather than big sweeping changes.

It's quite a shame that you don't know me IRL, because when i put things like 'nejii is incredibly wrong' it's more just me bagging you in a fun way, rather than being totally mean.

Those who are familiar with Australian culture understand that randomly insulting your mates is the done thing, and no-one should really take offence.

I wasn't particularly offended, no worries.

It is certainly a concern that you can't make any larger set of connected changes, and that's really hampered my guild, and I assume other guilds, from making changes that would be beneficial to the whole game, not just our guild. But I don't think you have to change the whole system. What if we had the same monthly envoy cycle we have now, but with a means to "save up" some changes and group them together? Here are a few ways something like this might work, just brainstorming so not fully thought through:

• Every year January and February's regular envoy reports are deferred in favor of one larger envoy report for the whole period in which each guild can propose a more sweeping set of coordinated changes. Then in March the normal schedule returns. (Maybe it'd be three months instead of two, maybe it'd happen twice a year, but you get the idea.)
• Allow a guild to "save" slots for later use. In January we say "we're saving this month's slots" and then next month submit a double batch. Could mean the coders get a double-whammy at times, but most of the time the easing off of one guild's slots will coincide with the increase of another guild's slots.
• Have a "round robin" in which each month one guild is allowed a double number of slots, and then don't get to go the next month. So in January Paladins get a double dose, but don't get to submit any in February. February sees the Geomancers getting a double slot but none in March; March sees the Harbingers get a double, etc.

Incidentally, my feeling about illusions in combat is that they're really not as useful as people think. One-on-one combat may be an important thing for balancing purposes and for training, but in reality it's actually quite artificial. The real fighting of Lusternia is 99% group fighting (and the tendency of serious combatants to take one-on-one fighting more seriously than it really is worth is the cause of a lot of the game's skill imbalances, IMO). System-breaking illusions in group combat are of extremely limited use because you're nearly as likely to break your allies as your enemies.

All that is fine, but we still need a better picture delivered from the admin on exactly what we're aiming for. It sounds like those things make sense to put into use if the admin don't still reckon the envoy system shouldn't be changed at all, it just doesn't get to the root of the problem.

I think "balance" is not easily defined for anyone (including me), and thus I think it will always be blurry. As has been pointed out, if the nebulous goal is to balance solo combat exclusively, then imbalances could occur in group combat. And conversely, balancing group combat exclusively could also imbalance solo combat. What's the solution? Well, I'm not sure what the choices are except to generally try to balance the balance between group and solo combat! Also, a pertinent question is what matters to you, the player, most? Solo combat or group combat? It seems to me most people would like to balance solo combat until they experience group combat. I'm not sure how else to approach the issue except with how we are, considering both solo and group combat and coming up with compromises when there is a conflict between the two.

There are limitations on the envoy reports for the simple fact that without limitations there is no way we could guaranty to get to at least one report a month. Even so, it is frequent that we ask for extra envoy reports! On top of that, we often request that envoys submit special reports.

If envoys feel there is a major imbalance with a skillset and want to overhaul that particular skillset, they can request from the admin to submit a special report on it. In the past, I admit to not having liked such reports when submitted but in the future I will try and be more open to it. Part of the problem is that sometimes I just don't like the ideas submitted for big overhauls so maybe this could be a case where I could get more involved in the design level. We have tried to do this for monks with some success (admittedly not complete success) so there's some precedent. However, implementing special reports of this nature simply would not have any priority basis and you would have to resign yourself to the fact that it may take a long time before we could get to it depending on a host of a factors.

The attention given monks in their formative months was great and I think well worth-it. We didn't take as much advantage of it as we really should have, which also wasn't helped by the fact that only one guild came out for a long time and we were too swamped to capitalise on the grace period so basically that report was just kind of messy on our end. That kind of thing can really change things for the better when applied properly, and if you're going to be more open about it in future I expect it to be taken good advantage of. They do need proper screening though.

That aside, I think even if you can't decide on group vs. solo combat, some lines laid down as to things like the styles of combat guilds should have their skills designed around, roles in group combat (my earlier post comes up again)/general usefulness, and the idea that guilds should take a similar amount of investment to be able to survive feasibly would help. The last one is probably not really repairable at this point in Lusternia's history but I do think that if given proper direction the first two can really be achieved and would make this place better.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by styles of combat. Also, I think you would want to try and define things by archetype rather than guild. Anyway, I believe mages, druids and bards (demesnes and songs) offer the most obvious benefits in group combat. I think moon/night totem users are unique insofar as large covens are stronger (thus encouraging them to group). I think the fighting style of knights and monks are the most straightforward (variations on hitting you with pointy sticks or other hard objects like fists). For wiccans and cosmic guardians, I think they ought to be the best at afflicting others magically as a strategy though not sure if that's really a 'style'.

Anyway, what's your thoughts? If you were going to categorize the archetypes, how would you do it? Maybe we'll agree with you!

I kinda wish there was a chance to do a redesign on the Shadowdancer class to make it not have to use choke. Then people would complain less. Ah well, probably not happening.

Ahaha, that's much harder, of course.

For starters, though, I'd much prefer to designate everyone with a style in solo combat and use in group combat/group whatever. You're quite right about archetype rather than guild so I'll use that term instead. Guilds can just have variants in terms of afflictions and "flavour" (angel hitting someone vs. demon hitting someone.)

For example, balancing around solo combat and compensating for overpowered group skills is how I believe we've done it in the past. You take a general idea (that needs refined) that says something along the lines of "a tritrans wiccan with hexes shouldn't easily beat or easily lose to a tritrans warrior of even player skill, system etc." The skillchoice thing I mentioned as a point of dispute but ignore that for now. By style I'm talking about the vaguely-defined seperation between damage classes and affliction classes that prevents nihilists from getting staffpoint-level player damage, but in reality it's more complicated than that - consider warriors as trying to wear you down with wounds, druids as trying to set up a nasty time to whack you with sap, and so on.

Then you assign each archetype something they're useful for that makes a team want to have one. Bards have team songs that make them the first target unless they're properly protected and prepared but in solo is pretty much like any other affliction method. Druids and magi have a demesne that focuses the fight around them. Wiccans have the coven business as mentioned, though that's not at all like the same level. Monks and warriors have very little to seperate them in this way and I think suffer from it in terms of identity - stealth looks like it's avoided this issue for ninjakari/emofist, but it would be great if monks and warriors each had a designated purpose. Tracking is an example of one such mechanic, but unfortunately it's a tertiary choice (and an unpopular one at that) so not all Serenguard get it.

I could probably discuss things in more detail and get some examples from somewhere but hopefully you see what I mean at least (3PM here, getting sleepy).

The Tajalli Two Cents

Styles of combat; supporting, tank, healer - all those typical terms.
Supporting; druids (honestly, if I had known going in that I'd be useless without a set up demesne, I wouldn't have gone druid. The demesne is great for group combat, but I can't stand on my own two feet by any means, without it. I'd change guilds, except for the newer leadership role. I wouldn't have such a problem with being a druid if there was more of a chance of survival without the demesne, just a little bit, while still being at my prime in the demesne.)
more tanky as far as I've gathered (please correct me); warriors
healing/supporting/tank; bards
healing; wiccans as they can take the literal skill

On the note of healing and astrology, wiccans and guardians definitely benefit from the option, but I think in an ideal Lusternia each guild's main "purpose" as far as group usefulness is concerned would be primarily focused into their primary and secondary skills. The tertiary could have yet more of it, as with (say) current Moondancers and Astrology, but I don't think you should force people to take a certain skillchoice to have your guild's usefulness for your city/commune. For example, if warriors were given a better-defined and mechanically-fleshed-out role, it shouldn't be focused in tracking.

EDIT: Time to sleep now. Thanks for the responses, will read more in the morning.

While I'll think about the overall question Estarra posed a bit more, I wanted to say the following in regards to one of Nejii's points:


The last one is, I believe, to some extent repairable. The issue where it presents the biggest challenge is Warriors. We have a large array of combat artifacts for our weapons. Each of these artifacts is expensive, with the most expensive set setting us back something like 4000 credits (stat runes, wounding runes, bleeding runes). Without the artifacts, warriors are, on many levels, rather weak. There've been many posts saying, "Hey, you're not doing so well? Well, that's because you don't have your weapon artifacted up like *insert Warrior-name here, such as Ixion/Geb/Daevos/Lisarel*. *Note: This is not disparaging their individual skills or systems or ability to cure: It is a comment on how artifacts work, and even Geb has mentioned that the artifacts make a large difference for him.

Then, when the artifacts are added in, things go the other way. Warrior balance is a pretty delicate field. For 4000 credits, you can tear through people without them really being able to stop you. Just with a Champion helm, I'm suddenly able to get one-combination pinlegs, and that's with just 300 credits of artifacts attached to my weapons (which required shaving more than 15 points off of each, so my weapons actually got worse from this).

There is a HUGE investment to be a warrior. There is no other class with 4000 credits that work purely on their offense, and only on *one* offense at that. If these runes are put onto a weapon, they stay on that weapon. They don't move to another. To fully do up two sets of weapons is eight thousand credits. Four cubixes. And this is on top of the whole weapon-forging thing (which is a bit easier now, hooray).

So, how do you repair it? One way is to make Warriors like most other classes, without such a wide array of offensive boosts so that it's easier to make tweaks to the class without having to take into account such a huge variety of factors. Another way is to just throw your hands in the air and say, "We expect Warriors to need these artifacts to compete, so we'll just redesign the way the artifacts work and balance around warriors who are fully runed." This makes the high-end level of Warrior combat hard, but, in the end, Warrior combat is already getting balanced around people with these runes, and so it is already harder to compete without some of these runes attached to your weapons.

Thus, an alternate suggestion to removing / retooling the runes: make the runes attach to jewellery, just like Mage runes. They affect weapons you hold in your hands with combined stats less than or equal to 463, so they are not buffing "superweapons". Create a 150-credit or so artifact to attach to weapons that gives resetting/nondecay + some small ability-- the Bleeding rune could probably serve this purpose okay, and wouldn't require a new rune's creation. This one would also necessitate refunding extra runes that those such as the aforementioned group bought, as they have different sets of weapons artifacted to the hilt, but at the same time it would bring down the cost to compete as a warrior significantly (one +15% wounding rune, 900. One +45 stat rune: 900. Total setback: 1800 credits for all of your weapons, +150 per weapon). This is much closer to the +15% +magic damage rune in cost, though I could see capping the +wounding at 10% with this lower overall cost, and perhaps capping the stat one at +30 as well (so +10% wounding and +10/10/10 to your held weapons for 1800 credits).

The final alternative is to just let the situation stand. Of the three, this is the most unfair solution, imo, but it's the one that makes the most sense from a business standpoint. You have warriors, and warriors are willing to buy the credits in order to be able to compete. Once again, I point at the aforementioned list. Warriors who aren't willing to buy credits will often switch class to something less credit intensive instead of quitting (from my experience, anyways), so it gives a very large credit sink for income. Unfortunately, it also leads to situations like the following: (*): Daevos says, "Fighting isn't enjoyable for me anymore, I'm not willing to switch classes just so I can out things." A huge investment made by warriors, just to be able to stand toe-to-toe with someone who has made a far smaller (by a quarter, or an eighth, or an even smaller amount) contribution, because other classes weren't designed in the same way.