Whilst responding to the current thread about AA (Alternate Advancement) systems, I touched upon the concept that to allow meaningful power progression choices has the impact of creating vastly more complex balancing issues.
I'm going to use a few words and I hope I'm using them in a non-confusing way that reflects accepted understanding: -
Level: Used to represent the progression of the overall 'power' of a character. Often gaining a level has implicit and automatic ability value increases and additional skills or skill power increases. Content is designed for certain levels. Encounters above/below your level tend to be exponentially tough/easy.
Horizontal Progression: Usually used to describe progression but usually of a flavour choice and not directly increasing the overall power of a character.
Class: The adventuring profression of a character. Defines its skills and the attributes that are primary to its power.
Sub-class: In many games after a certain amount of time a character can, within its class, specialise in a certain direction. This alters the direction of its power progression from then onwards.
Balance: The ideal of classes of certain levels being, overall, equally powerful to encounters designed for that level. Also the ideal of classes of a certain level being equal in overall power to other classes of that level.
Those words defined I will explain the thing I wanted to discuss: That, although meaningful specialisation of classes, ie. allowing horizontal *power* progression, is a desirable thing from a player's point of view, it inevitably leads to a game that is extremely difficult to balance and often becomes too easy for a hardcore minority and too hard for the casual majority.
I was a little disappointed when I heard Pantheon would be having a rigid class system, even though I loved Everquest. I also very much liked Rift where you could effectively design your own class by chosing from many options in complex skill trees. I also have liked in the past other systems where you specialise into a sub-class once or even multiple times as you progress.
I realise, though, that these systems create, in the case of Rift, horribly complex balancing tasks for the devs and, to a lesser extent, even sub-classes mean you are effectively doubling the number of classes each time you specialise.
A simplified class system, amongst other things like more clearly defined independence, means balancing is much easier and, thus, much more likely to be effective. A well balanced game is fundamental to making it have a consistent challenge level, which, to me, is one of, if not the most important, aspect of going 'old skool'.
What I have seen in some games is a situation where certain classes with certain specialisations at certain levels find supposedly level appropriate content trivial and supposedly 'too high' level content is doable. Simultaneously, you will get other class/specialisation choices that have made a character unable to attempt encounters of a supposedly 'even' level.
So, the conclusion I have come to is a rigid class system is very important for balance. Potential Alternate Advancement and other horizontal progression systems need to be developed very carefully not to badly effect the overall 'power' of a class and ruin the balance. I think that it is the group composition and dynamic that add the element and fun of flexibility. Your class progression may be quite rigid, but because Patheon will be a group-centric game and that group may vary wildly in composition and ability, you have all the chaos you may crave without damaging the balance of the game and that you find it largely only in your groupings with others is actually a very positive thing.
But have I got it wrong? Can meaningful power choices be made within a class by specialisation or Alternate Advancement or other horizontal progression without making maintaining balance impossible? What do you guys think? (I'd obviously love to hear from the devs, especially Joppa, on this, too, if they have time hehe!) There's almost certainly a design fundamental that I'm fumbling around that they have discussed many times before over the years...
I mostly agree. It is why I prefer an AA type system that gives you points as you level so that content is designed with it in mind, over an AA system at level-cap that trivializes all content designed for characters that do not yet have the AAs. Thus, suppose the system allowed a ranged class to improve either bow or crossbow, giving choices as to play style. If bow and crossbow were properly equivilqant in power the player's choice would be essentially cosmetic in that it would not affect his or her ability to go through content.
Failing that an AA system at level-cap can be horizontal - giving non-combat abilities on many types as discussed in the AA thread.
While I loved the EQ2 sub-class system I agree that in this game with a smaller development team and many classes and races already it is neither necessary nor desirable.
I enjoyed Rift but hated the aspect of it where one character could do anything. Great for someone that will only play one character - a bit demoralizing for someone that likes to have many. Rift allowed alts - much more than FFXIV - but there was no real *need* to have more than one character.
We're used to class-based systems because many MMOs have used them. Those games made that design choice specifically because classes are something that people sort of instinctively understand. When you give someone a title that defines what they do, it's comfortable, and then you can focus progression decisions within the scope of that title.
However, it is entirely possible to build a skill-based system that eschews classes as well. The key here however is that you have to design the rest of the game differently as a result. In SWG (pre-CU), people who specialized in different areas of the skill tree were incredibly valuable, both for their combat potential as well as for the unique abilities they brought to the group. So instead of forming a group where you wanted a tank, a healer, and some damage, instead you'd look for a good scout for their utility, a bounty hunter who could debuff, a combat medic, and maybe a rifleman for the heavy ranged damage.
Both systems can work but the choice of which way to go will impact how the rest of the game gets set up - everything from how non-combat abilities and roles work, to encounter and content design.
The trick to setting up a skill-based system that doesn't make it feel like everyone can do everything is simply ensuring that the choices within that skill tree are meaningful and sticky. If you go one way it means you don't get to go another. If you decide to change later it is not a quick and easy process to do so. If you do it right, in essence, the different combinations within the skill tree become different "classes".
I prefer organic growth systems as opposed to artificial level/point progression systems in general. That said, I would take the way EQ handled character progression over the way that UO did it. Not because the concept of character progression via skills in UO was bad, but because there simply weren't enough choices in that system to prevent people from gaming it into FotM templates.
I realize half of this is me rambling but I hope that all makes sense somehow :)
The only way I could see it working for a meaningful grind that doesn't upset balance or simply offer an illusion of choice would be if players could grind toward cosmetic alterations for their characters. Grind toward different visual effects for spells/abilities that don't alter anything but the vfx or sounds, things like summoners able to pick different looks for pets or warriors alternate battle standard skins. The main issue/concern with such a system is it makes it harder for players to read what is happening in the thick of battle, less of an issue in PvE than PvP but still a concern.
That said, we all know cosmetics are a massive drive in gaming today and I think grinding toward things like that would go a long way.
disposalist said: ... Can meaningful power choices be made within a class by specialisation or Alternate Advancement or other horizontal progression without making maintaining balance impossible? What do you guys think? ...Yes.
vjek said:disposalist said: ... Can meaningful power choices be made within a class by specialisation or Alternate Advancement or other horizontal progression without making maintaining balance impossible? What do you guys think? ...Yes.
The way this can be done is by allowing ability or spell customization via effects on gear, slots, or similar equippables.
And/Or..
Via sacrifice, either additionally or instead of the above.
Some, many, or all of those systems can allow each player to create specialized gear for particular encounters, zones or roles.
The balance knobs are the percentage of effects, what numerics of each can be adjusted, caps for all numerics/effects, and how many slots you need to apply sufficient adjustment to a single ability or spell.
Players have to be given actual meaningful choice in this or a similar manner, or it ends up being a BIS gear treadmill, like any other similar implementation.
I agree that gear is a great way to allow 'customisation' of your class as long as the change doesn't alter overall possible 'power' but instead, as you highlight, allows the overcoming of negative effects in particular situations/environments/zone/encounters/climates.
I'm reminded of the current thread about the newsletter. There are warrior class fans who are very unhappy that a shield will be intrisic to the warrior class and want to be able to DPS with a two-hander, as some other games allow. To simple allow a two-hander to be used at the expense of losing shield-related skills would, no doubt, not be very agreeable. But to design the 'shield-related' skills to actually be more agnostic, you would perhaps keep people happier. For example, maybe using Slam, Defend and Charge skills work best with a shield, but work with a two-hander as well, but give lesser stun/AC/debuff effects, but with added DoT/DD/movement instead, so if you find yourself in a off-tank or even DPS role, you don't feel gimped and that you can even 'specialise' in DPS by collecting the right gear.
Thanks for the comment vjek.
For those talking about skill-based systems, did you find that those games had a good level of challenge and balance?
I agree that skill-based systems can be very rewarding and interesting - I loved that designing a character in Rift was almost a game in itself - but I've not played one that didn't feel too easy once you worked out the most effective skills and synergies. They also tended to lead to a lack of interdependency or even a need to group at all.
It seemed in Rift there was so much flexibility that the devs couldn't possibly design content for 'average' people and their builds that would also be challenging for those that really new how to build a character. You would end up making builds that you knew were 'interesting' and weird so that the content was even adequately challenging.
disposalist said: ... For example, maybe using Slam, Defend and Charge skills work best with a shield, but work with a two-hander as well, but give lesser stun/AC/debuff effects, but with added DoT/DD/movement instead, so if you find yourself in a off-tank or even DPS role, you don't feel gimped and that you can even 'specialise' in DPS by collecting the right gear. ...Exactly right. Collecting the right gear (in this context) to align their characters power with their own personal goals & choices is what keeps people playing these games forever.