Debate: Character Specialization vs. Balance

Ok then, I will start.

Definition:
Before I state my side, let me define first class balance, as how kashie (the one who suggested the debate) defined it. Balance refers to all character classes being fairly equal in all fields, whether it be in PVE or PVP. As such, all characters can equally hunt, craft, etc. In PVP, classes have almost equal chances of winning against other classes. Thus, there is no favorable and unfavorable class.

My side:
The good side of class balance is obviously the fairness that it gives. One does not need to worry about not getting partied because his class can do fairly well as all the other classes. Neither will he worry that he will just get owned by other people in PVP, whether in solo fight or in team battle, because the classes are balanced. Winning and losing will depend on your gear and your skill, not on your chosen class.

This fairness also breeds diversity. Since all classes are fairly equal, people can choose any class that he or she wants. He will not be restricted in choosing a class. If classes are not balanced, it is highly likely to see a lot more of those more "powerful" classes, leaving the "not so powerful" classes to a very select few.

 

Voting after the debate works for me.

 

I'm fine with posting the poll in the end too. It's more reasonable to finish the debate and hear both sides completely before starting the poll.


Your very first statement admits that balance is important. Even if you're going for specialization, you can't deny the fact that balance is still necessary. The main reason for this is that many people will complain if classes aren't balanced. That's exactly the case in many games. When a class is overpowered, many people complain. They want the class to be nerfed so that classes will be balanced. And who can blame them? We want a fight that is based on skill, not based on a predetermined class.

Take Dragon Nest, for example. Classes are specialized in that a tanker can really tank, a DPS really deals a lot more damage than the others, and the healer is the sole healer of the game. The problem is that in PVP, Bow Masters, for example, suck big time. They are mainly for PVE. It's my favorite class, yet I was forced to make an Acrobat just so that I can also enjoy PVP. A game shouldn't force anyone to make a character that they don't really like just to be able to enjoy a feature that they want to experience.

Lastly, balance does not necessarily mean there's one mold and a few attributes are just revised. In many games like Atlantica Online, classes are very diverse with a variety of different attributes and skills. However, the skills and attributes are very well tested so that they still end up very balanced. As such, when you look at the PVP battles, you will see a lot of different builds and formations. There isn't "one strong build" which allows for variety, but still maintain balance.

 

When i asked "class specialization vs class balance", i was also thinking of the "rock/paper/scissors model vs. balanced model", which was essentially a question whether it is better for MMO characters to be restrained by a character limit/weakness or allow them to be more balanced (but more streamlined / prone to being called same classes with different skins).

 

With how Kashie defined the balance vs specialization debate, I believe both of us are doing something that's quite off with her definition. Looking at all our arguments, some of them are like "balance is more important but specialization and uniqueness may still be present" vs "specialization is more important but we can make a game that is still somewhat balanced." We are both arguing that our side is more important but the other side can still be present, although secondary to the first. I think kashie wants us just to present "very balanced but classes are relatively similar" vs "very specialized but no balance at all." Correct me if I'm wrong Kashie, but you want us to take the extremes?

If this is the case, then I'd still go for balance even if classes might look like similar classes with different skins. Of course, those people who want very distinct classes will not be very happy with it, but I think a good chunk of players will still accept the game as it still gives them the feeling that each classes are still different, even if they are not entirely so. If my archer's freezing arrow, is somewhat similar in effect and damage with a mage's ice ball, at least I still know that I'm an archer because I use bow and arrows.

Compare that to a game that is specialized but not balanced. Following the rock/paper/scissor model, it eliminates a lot of important things. Since a class is restricted by its weakness, it pretty much disregards skill and strategy when fighting in PVP. For example, if mage>warrior>archer>mage, then if I'm a mage, I can easily beat any warrior out there, because I'm your inherent weakness. Similarly, I can't beat an archer because I'm inherently weak against them. If this is the case, nobody will do PVP because victory depends on my class, not on skills and strategy.

I believe that sacrificing balance for specialization will result to a lot of complaints and griefing since people want fair and equal grounds. On the other hand, look at how small the effect of sacrificing specialization for the sake of balance can be. Runescape is very popular, even if a mage pretty much does what an archer can do. When it comes to PVP or PVE, all classes are very equal and have equal chances of winning, if players have similar gears and skill level.

 

yeah, something along those lines. Actually, i don't go with "extremes". For me it's either this or that, black or white, no in-betweens. Maybe start the debate with a presentation of what you're defending is and what it is not. When we can't get a feasible separation of the two topics, then weeeeeeeeeee have a problem.

 

Is this debate stalled by definition?

 

I don't know, but quinn can continue with the new definition. I already made new arguments based on the corrected and explained definition.

 

Saying that no class is weaker means tapping to the "balance" side of things. If we go completely for specialization and no balance, some classes should be stronger than others. Saying that no class is necessarily weaker admits the fact that you are still clinging for some sort of balance. Not balance means not equal.

It is true that having distinct classes can encourage teamwork, but only if balance is present. The reason why teamwork is present in many MMOs is because there is still some balance present in the different classes. If there's no balance, majority of people will choose the OP class regardless of specialization. What's the point of having a healer if DPS classes can outdamage their healing? I'd prefer an all DPS team to do an all out offensive against a team with different specialization to get the win. And when this happens, people will realize that specialization will not make sense in an unbalanced class system.

I once encountered someone in Aika saying that there's an abundance of Snipers (DPS) and very few Warriors and Crusaders (tanks). This is because in PVP, Snipers can literally just kite those tanks. The classes are specialized, but they are not that balanced when it comes to PVP (which is the main point of the game). As such, diversity is reduced as most people choose Snipers or Night Magicians.

Lastly, I don't think the main reason why Runescape is boring is that the classes are balanced. Runescape is boring because of the grind. Many MMOs are grindy, but Runescape took it to the next level and made every single thing a grind. Not only the combat, but also things like crafting, mining, etc. Blaming the boredom to class balance is unfounded.

 

When can we vote?

 

Either Quinn will continue the debate or Ogre will post the poll.

 

Sure. We can start the poll now. But if we start the poll, does that mean the debate has ended and we can no longer post our points?