I guess, my layperson's opinion on balance is like this:

If I invest the same amount of learning, time, effort, and credits in class A, the end result should be approximately equivalent in an overall sense to the same invested in classes B-Z.

I mean, with as many variables in the balance equation as Lusternia has, I don't think it would be practical to have a perfect precision fit for something like that. But at the same time, when there is a fairly clear discrepency, adjustments to some part of the system should be made.

I also think it's a dangerous path to start assigning roles and basing balance around them. Especially after the game is established. I feel it would create the bad type of differentiation- the type where almost any discrepency becomes defensible on the grounds of role. I really think single combat is the way to go, if one needs to be focused on.

As players, we center our experience on our own character, and so our enjoyment flows through this conduit. From the designer's mountain, looking down, it may be tempting to see everything as purely one giant clockwork, that a significant disadvantage to one class is accounted for with mechanics elsewhere. But it's not the same for the indivudal player who is tied to their character. It's not going to be much comfort to most players who gets almost categorically shut down in single combat to tell them "in group combat, you're useful!"

To use a fictional hypothetical- lets say astronauts are intentionally made super fighting masters. Lets say they do a ton of damage to one person, and this allows them to really do well in single combat, and often get final hits in for flashy death sense messages. Now, lets say aliens are really great at group support, and as such, aren't allowed as much direct single combat viability. In a group, lets say that a well used aliens can give his/her allies a really significant improvement, or dramatically hinder his/her enemies.

The result of all this fiction? In a group, the alien may feel very useful and powerful. In single combat, the alien feels like crap, especially when the odd astronaut rolls around when they're off hunting. Conversely, in single combat, the astronaut feels great. In group combat, the astronaut may or may not feel like they have a big impact, but they're still pummeling people, and still getting killing blows. In the end, there are probably going to be a lot more people who want to play astronauts as opposed to aliens.


On the more general topic of balance, there's also the issue to consider of balance to attain a certain point. Lets say we have, oh, lets use skaters and sledders. Lets say both can reach some given rough point of ability, but the skater needs mostly only their skates and some warm clothes to reach this , but the sledder needs a Rosebud-X4000 megasled with diamond edged runners, SuperGoggles with Virtual Reality enhancement, and an Absolute-zero ice retardant snow parka. (ok that was fun to think up). The sledder had to put forward grossly more effort for the same result. While it's never going to be perfectly even between classes that have to invest as such and other classes, there should not be very large discrepencies in a balanced system, unless there are appropriately large differences in end performance- i.e., a person had to invest more, but has more potential in the end, and such investment pays off in better performance.

Where it doesn't work is "much larger investment in order to break even". That's not fair to the sledder.

I like what you said there better than my post, but I like my analogies better.

This part I'm not ok with.

Let's assume you more or less balance around tri-trans. Even tri-trans, you really can't fight a warrior or monk without near-trans combat and near-trans resilience, and the benefit you get from focus mind, while not really necessary, is so substantial that it's generally added to the balance equation for affliction classes as well. Since it costs more credits to enter the fray against warriors and monks than against the affliction classes, I'm generally ok with balancing warrior combat around the assumption that the warrior has some sort of minor artifact on his weapons. This tri-trans level + basics level should be where most of the balancing is done.

Then, on the side of the world that the envoys don't have a voice in, offensive artifact boosts should scale better. It shouldn't cost 4000cr for full warrior artis unless it costs 4000cr for full monk, mage, and guardian artis. Warrior artis also shouldn't make warriors the best class in the game just because warriors happen to spend more. (And they aren't, by the by.) If that's the case, better offensive artis for the afflicters should be added, or warrior artis should be limited. Tri trans + extras might be the more important level to balance at, but fully artied omnitrans should also balance equally and cost about the same amount.

EDIT: Hrm, I don't think my point was clear. What's unfair to the warrior is that they have a much larger investment. What's there is still better than giving warriors a potential that can't be reached in any other class. A much larger investment in order to break even is better than just giving warriors the carte blanche option to be better than everyone else because of their artifact selection.

Then the other classes should be given opportunity to make a equivalent investment, rather than making warriors invest a grotesquely large amount more than them just to do what they do.

Just a quick, presuppositional question: are we all sold on the assumption that effectiveness in player-versus-player combat is the only relevant factor in determining whether or not the classes are balanced?

I mean, most abilities do orient to PvP, so it makes sense for that factor to be heavily weighted, but does it make sense at all to think about the other ways a class choice impacts character effectiveness? Bashing comes to mind, for instance. If class Foo gets an 8 in PvP and a 4 in PvM, and class Bar gets a 6 in PvP and a 7 in PvM, are these classes unbalanced?

If so, is the solution to get Bar to an 8 in PvP?

Here is a radical thought then, how about just remove the warrior artifacts. Just because something has carved a niche for itself and seemed to have soaked deep into the roots does not mean that it should not be reconsidered. No archetype should have to spend hundreds and even thousands on artifacts merely to break even or come close to it. Time after time, I’ve sat and thought about the warrior archetype and how many fundamental problems yet persist in its design. It has become ever more apparent however over the three years since the beginning of this game that these problems will likely never be addressed as long as the artifacts exist in their current form. The artifacts stand as a seemingly insurmountable barrier to balance for warriors by their very nature as an assured counterpoint to any discussion on the need for changes.

It ties into the larger issue of resistance to any suggestion regarding perceived unique features of Lusternia. Each of these features are considered to be intertwined with the existence of the game even as the venom they inject into Lusternia’s blood can be clearly felt. It has reached the point now that if one is not aware that any concerns regarding this matter will be largely ignored, they are naïve and foolish. Why is this so? Is everything about the game truly perfect as is? Is there really nothing that can be done to fix problems that have been allowed to fester?

Then on the other hand, there is the matter about where balance should focus. Should precedence be given to solo skirmishes or group battles? To me, the answer is pretty clear when one considered the realities of Lusternia. This is a game that focuses on the group dynamic beyond any other IRE game, almost all conflict is group vs group rather than person vs person. Individuality is not given as much weight in the game as in the other games. Thus it should be obvious that group balance should be placed at the forefront because that is what most players are more likely to experience.

I'm fine with doing more of a focus on group battles. The envoys have, as a whole, been working more to balance things for group *and* 1v1, but it might be better to make more of a shift towards a group focus. However, at that point, we have to do things like re-examine inquisition (only works for you if you did the first stages) and sacrifice (can't sacrifice a crucified person unless you did the crucify), both of which have skated by thus far based on the "intended Envoy focus" as we understand it.

I also did mention (briefly) the removal of Warrior runes, but I really don't expect that to happen. As such, a retooling/softening of them and a limitation of their cost would be preferable, but if removing the offensive runes is something that people feel strongly about, I don't really have objections (as long as something is in place for being able to rune a weapon to make it non-decay / resetting). At the same time, though, I'd want the +magic damage arties removed-- so, again, I don't really expect it to occur.

my idea of group combat layout, how it could be:

knights
tanks (could be able to walk into a group with biggest chance of survival, could have party leading abilities 'unblock' and such)

monks
skrimishers. (engange/disengage people the easiest, could have abilities that seperates people from groups the best)

bards
support. (party support offensive songs/defensive songs, could have highest affliction rate on groups)

mage / druids
area effects. ( could have the highest single damage dealing abilities and highest dps on groups )

guardians / wiccans
afflictions (could have the highest affliction rate solo combat and backline boosting abilities)

I disagree pretty strongly with the implication in this statement - that we should strive to be making major combat adjustments all the time. There needs to be a period of observation after any changes in order to make an informed decision. It's easy to jump to a knee-jerk reactionary conclusion right away, but I don't think speeding up our process to make major changes continually is going to help us achieve better archetype balance.

We could always go to an envoy system like the other games use - intermittent reports with large batches of changes, lacking the argument/veto/compromise system we have now. I know there are certainly players who feel that the envoy system is too political in nature, and that this has hurt combat balance. I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other on that issue.

Some interesting things written here.

After speaking with a few knowledgeable persons, the opinion is that all classes should have a feasible, reliable method to kill someone that can be countered with effective curing. The feasilibity of said method(s) should take this into account and provide a way to match said curing and potentially gain leverage although not instantly. The tricky part is coming up with ideas that fit this mold. Right now, there is a huge problem with monks. Bards still need a few tweaks, but I'm baffled by monk design and how imbalanced they are. It is as if someone with absolutely no concept of balance thought they'd fit in with the general scheme of things, with their never-ending kata forms. Also, someone mentioned the envoy system and their limitations. I have a huge problem with the 'veto-system'. I also find the constant changes to be a bit grating and hardly helpful. There's the issue with envoy suggestions being turned down, in spite of mass approval, due to unyielding views laid out by the administration.

In another thread, most voted in favour of bug fixes instead of new skillsets/major changes. That's a glaring clue that we need to head in that direction and I have noticed the last few announces, so it's a start. I believe the constant changes are meant to bring in new people and/or increase credit purchases. That's fine, it's a business, but I'm feeling less and less inclined to buy credits. Especially as a warrior(ess. hee). I've ranted about the fact that warriors have to buy expensive artifact runes to reach their potential, while other classes are just as effective, if not more, with less investment. A tad unfair.

Last thing, I really like Xenthos' idea on the runes, which basically would have them work like weapon-aura. I am -so- jealous of weapon-aura. It's like a free weapon rune!

@Tzu - I don't really like that setup. All classes should have one on one capability and not stuck in one type of role.

Balance means this: if you're choosing a class, no class stands out as being more desirable than the others to almost everyone. To make that definition useful, separate out the class itself (as defined by skills) from the guild and nation you have to be in to get it.

Here's a gedankenexperiment to try out. If you could swap your skills with those of another class, at no cost, and without having to change anything else (including your roleplay, what people you deal with, etc.), is there a single class or set of skills that stand out as the one you'd choose? If there is, and a very large number of people would choose the same, then it might be imbalanced.

(Or it might just be a perception: people tend to imagine everyone else's skills as better than they actually are, because people usually only see the skill when it works, and don't see the costs and hassles. This is usually pretty symmetrical: everyone sees their enemy's skills as being more useful than they are. But for some skills, the gap between perceived and real utility is larger, because the bits you don't see are a bigger deal, so it's possible some class might better than it is by a larger amount.)

Considering balance in these terms answers questions like Demetrios's: Is combat the only factor in balancing classes? Only if it's the only factor in why you'd choose a class. (It's not. But it is an awful large one, especially after you subtract out player-driven factors like avoiding a class because its associated guild is full of idiots, too large, too small, in the wrong city, etc.).

I've stated that artifacts make a difference on warrior versus warrior combat. I've fought plenty of other classes with my non-artifact bashing katana, and ripped them apart because of the speed at which it builds up wounds and afflicts. Truthfully, warriors do not need artifacts to do well against the other classes if they know what they are doing. It is only when a warrior faces another warrior with very good healing, that artifacts come into play and aid in the fight.



Just with the champion helm? The champion helm is superior to all of the artifacts I have on my precision katana. It boosts damage, speed, and wounds more than all of my artifacts combined. So your statement seems to imply that having a full set of artifacts is greater than the boost the helm gives, and I can tell you it is most definitely not the case.



The problem with your conclusion about how to fix warriors is that you assume warriors need artifacts to compete with most of the classes, and I personally know that is false. I've fought plenty of non-warriors with my dull-katana (104/279/290 with dwarven runes) and have defeated them with diligent use of the speed, lower wound required afflictions + poison combos, and paying attention to the person's parrying. I've even used that weapon to defeat warriors with fullplate with relative ease. Like I said before, the only time artifact weapons really come in need is to help against warriors who have spent the time to acquire the greatest armour levels possible, and are also themselves very good healer, hinderers (stunners for the most part), and users of stancing and parrying. In those cases, artifacts do help tip the balance to allow one to figure out strategies to defeat the person. Even with the artifacts, the person using them may still not be able to defeat the person he/she is fighting if the person is still superior in skill (I know this as a fact too, because when I was a mage people with a fullset of artifacts were still unable to defeat me, and many artifact warriors have found themselves defeated by me when I was not even in a demesne and did not use one staffcast).

Now I do agree that warrior artifacts may be a bit too expensive considering the credit lose incurred if the person does decide to change weapons. A suggestion someone made to turn them into worn items that boost the weapon being wielded sounded very good to me. Still, we do have to remember that this game is a business, and changes like that would also change the revenue. Now in what direction it may change it is unknown to me, because it could go either way.

QFT. There's a reason not many people are Druids (or at least so I've been told).

?

This was group combat, I realy dont understand how this would limit anything, its suggestion to have classes a field of expertise where they peak at, not limit it too only.

Just going to say this once.

I hate change.

Continue!

You only say this 'cause Celest is leading in politics and overpowerednesss!!!!

Have to say, I really love Xenthos' idea with the change to runes.
But as Geb said, yeah, it could lead to a change in the revenue, though it can go either way.
Though, my view is: I always hesitated from buying runes simply -because- they could only get attached to one weapon. If I ever wanted to change skillset/weapons, I'd be stuck with a loss of 1/3 of the credits, which really hurts. In my oppinion, if people know they won't lose a large part of their investment if they ever want to change spec/weapon, they'll be more likely to buy runes. (At least that's the case for me, I know -I'd- get myself level 3 runes if they worked that way.

Edited for clarity.

/tease


As for balancing, I was never big on the whole have to buy arties to be on par with archetypes who only have to trans skills. It would be understandable if to be on par with these people all you needed to do was be omnitrans. But as it seems right now, it is more of having to be omnitrans (to counter skills, which is fine) and having to have arti's just to be able try and deliver any type of wounding/damage to them.

Geb is right on the part with a katana. The speed helps, but if you want an edge over a person with the same might/same level and who has a decent healing system, I think you almost always need arties to accomplish this. (Well you don't if you have a warrior champ helm though)

umm, thats an artifact too you know...

Do let me know when you find an envoy suggestion for buffing myself without good reason.