It's basically the idea that "balance" can't be reduced to a single factor, and by trying to balance around a single factor, you are actually creating more imbalances.

If Class Foo is a 10 in group combat, and Class Bar is a 6 in group combat (assuming we can even come to an agreeable measure of group combat effectiveness given all the factors involved in that), then we can balance for group combat by making Bar a 10, Foo a 6, or both an 8 or whatever. But what if Foo is a 4 in single combat and Bar is a 10 in single combat. Have we balanced the classes successfully by balancing around group combat? Or have we actually, instead, ruined some uniquenesses of classes Foo and Bar that may have, arguably, already been balanced.

Well, the example points out what happens when you pick one factor to balance around. The class became more balanced for bashing, which is what the vast majority of UO players were interested in, but it actually made the class -un-balanced because it had been designed to be particularly strong in one area and fairly weak in the others. Unlucky them, their one strength was the area that interested people the most, and they got "balanced" around it.

As to your Starcraft example, you're right. You can theoretically win the game with any faction, and the factions have various strengths and weaknesses, as do their individual troops. But the analogy doesn't carry in these ways: 1) You can already succeed in Lusternia with any character class, which would make them balanced by your analogy, 2) There is only one way to measure effectiveness in Starcraft - killing everyone else in group combat. You don't have single combat in Starcraft (well, extremely rarely and usually by accident - you certainly aren't going to win that way), you don't bash, you don't explore (except as subservient to the aforementioned killing the other group), and 3) Each "character" in Starcraft really only does one thing, or possibly two. If a Protoss foot soldier swings a sword, and a Zerg foot soldier bites you, and that's all they do, it isn't complicated to see if they're balanced or not.



By your lights, sure, because solo PvP is what defines fun and success for you. I would bet, however, that if you offered an artifact in Lusternia that doubled damage against other players, and you offered another artifact that doubled damage against mobs, you would not find that everyone rushed to get the first one and nobody bought the second one. They don't -mind- being worse (compared to others who bought the first artifact) in solo PvP if they are -better- bashers because of it. And would you say this created a serious imbalance that needed correction?

I think it is perfectly acceptable to have a character class consistently weaker in PvP than the others, as long as they are stronger somewhere else, and let the players decide which sets of strengths and weaknesses they'd rather play with (or what they'd rather RP). I don't buy into a philosophy that all classes have to be equally good at everything, and I certainly don't buy into a philosophy that all classes have to be equally good at group combat and just let the chips fall in the other areas.

And you and I might agree, here, to an extent. As I said, I think at some level, when gross imbalance occurs, people see it. If you have one class that is consistently better at everything than all the other classes, or one that is consistently worse at everything, then you'll notice.

I'm not sure that's the case here, though. Look at the extremely wide variety of opinions on what classes are overpowered and what abilities are overpowered. This wide spectrum of conflicting opinion would seem to indicate an overall level of balance. I'm not saying the issue is so complicated that it's impossible to discuss; I'm saying that there are lot of variables and complexity to the balance discussion, and it seems like many people are managing this complexity by ignoring most of it. That, to me, will create imbalances.



Well, I can't speak for the interests of Envoys. I know Xavius has recommended downgrades as well as upgrades for Druids, and I trust his knowledge of the class as well as his knowledge of other classes, insofar as it comes to making suggestions about Druids.

And I'm not even sure it's a matter of everyone wanting their class to be "ahead." They just want to be just as good as everyone else about everything all the time. I don't think this is a realistic or particularly interesting goal for class design.

Just browse through the posts over the past couple of months complaining about a class or an ability. Is there any class that ISN'T suggested needs to be scaled back? Lots of people are calling for balance, but when you ask them what they want, they all want different things. So, it seems pretty clear that balance is in the eye of the beholder, as far as these discussions go, and most of them are based on, "Class X always kills me," or "I can't avoid Class X's combo," or "Class X consistently ends up with more corpses than I do when we bash."

Well, that's not automatically a balance problem, but it'll certainly -appear- to be one if you have a narrow idea of what balance entails.

Way too much for me to respond to there at this time of afternoon, so I'll cover the two things that stuck out most to me:
You mishandled Starcraft. Yes, a protoss soldier only attacks you. But in Lusternia a web always webs you (minus cloaking and crow defences respectively.) That's the level you should be comparing it on there. Starcraft factions are as complex, or more, as classes in combat here, but they're still balanced. Yes there are people who are worse at it or better at balancing things and being objective, but that's the nature of the beast - failing to use standards to determine balance at all does not fix things. Also, the fact that there's no consensus does not mean there's no objective balance to be found, hopefully by the envoys if anyone. Not all ideas are created equal.

The other thing that stuck out was that you assume not all players wanting to PvP and want to be better at bashing means that it's fair for those who -do- want to PvP effectively have to be locked into a specific class. If people don't want to be effective at PvP then that's fine - they don't have to. There are also people who like to do multiple things, though I'm not sure whether punishing them or failing to reward people who only want to do well at one thing is a valid philosophy so I won't count that here.

Firstly, forcing people who want to be effective at PVP to be a specific class lowers the variety of the combat and makes that class less fun - if warriors are better at solo fighting than bards then everyone will be a warrior, and that's boring. Same if everyone played protoss unless they wanted to be better at, um, scenario maps (terrible example but hopefully you get the idea.) Secondly, if warriors are good at solo combat, druids at group combat and monks at bashing then if I happen to enjoy group combat I have to be a druid. Having to run a demesne would be annoying to me, though bizarre people like Alianna enjoy it, so I wouldn't enjoy the game nearly so much. Plus I like being invested in the Shofangi's guild setup. This is a sacrifice you have to make to some extent if you make classes diverse in terms of style because otherwise they'd all be clones, but there's no need to exacerbate it.

BTW, just for the record, I don't care how effective I am at solo fighting, so your comment was misplaced. If I'm biased here it's because I want the guild and class I'm in because I like the RP and social dynamic to be more useful to my org in general, including group combat, not because I want to be more effective in solo PVP - I just accept that solo PVP balance is a necessary function for this game and consider myself familiar enough with the system to comment on it.

This post is longer than I meant it to be and I'm tired and kept editing bits of it back and forth so I'll summarise my main point:
It's not balanced in an interesting way when Foo is 4 at PVP and 10 at bashing and Bar is 10 at PVP and 4 at bashing. While it's balanced if all classes are clones of each other it's similarly boring, so the fact that it's "arguably balanced" is necessary, not sufficient, for it not requiring change.

EDIT: Good grief, my post is about as long as yours. Definitely going to sleep now.