How to make sure vocations are balanced?

[foxrother]

I have been seeing some cool projects going on around here, and one of them has lots cool vocations (Necronia, I'm looking at you). And besides how awesome all of these fresh concepts sound, this keeps echoing in my head: "How do they balance it out? Do they have to be balanced?".

In my mind, such a thing involves so many parameters: "how does this vocation make enough money, and if it doesn't, how does it make up for that?", "if a particular vocation hits less per second than the others, does it defend more? How much more?"...

Do you guys come up with formulas or just keep testing your ideas until you're satisfied with the results?

 

[Evil Puncker]

tests, tests and more tests.

 

[imback1]

just keep testing your ideas until you're satisfied with the results

That's is.

 

[owned]

I have been seeing some cool projects going on around here, and one of them has lots cool vocations (Necronia, I'm looking at you). And besides how awesome all of these fresh concepts sound, this keeps echoing in my head: "How do they balance it out? Do they have to be balanced?".

In my mind, such a thing involves so many parameters: "how does this vocation make enough money, and if it doesn't, how does it make up for that?", "if a particular vocation hits less per second than the others, does it defend more? How much more?"...

Do you guys come up with formulas or just keep testing your ideas until you're satisfied with the results?

When it comes to my vocations, equipment, and weapons, I personally like to come up with formulas, it's more convenient and in the long run provides for better results.

 

[whitevo]

my balanced method is to buff the least favorite vocation/build with better spells/items until that build/vocation is better than the rest of vocations/builds.

 

[Zasranets]

Honestly in any server or any game vocations will always be unbalanced in some way; it might be small, might be huge. The bottom line is that there will always be people that complain "this vocation sucks", "wow this vocation hits so much more than me", "wtf this guy just 1 shot me". There will always be people that unhappy about certain vocations and throw fits until they get their vocation buffed..

The best way to get as precise as you can to balanced vocations is to just test, test, and test as stated above. Don't think that will be enough either, you should also let close ones, friends, and random people test the vocations and see what they think. You can't always assume what YOU think is balanced is actually balanced, because whats balanced for you might not be balanced for someone else.

It also depends on how the vocations are created. Obviously you can't except a support class to hit as much as a DPS class, yet there will still be people who complain about that. I guess it just comes down to the person that has authority over the vocation and what they decide to do is how the vocation will turn out.

 

[Exorcist]

@Zasranets i like what you said about the support class to dps class thing, but in alot of ots that idea will fail, because most ots people come out with are not meant to be played in groups and if you do play in groups it isnt really accomplishing much, because of this i always end having to ask for a "buff" on most support classes damage wise because most servers dont really support group hunting and most servers are basically just heal and do damage with one spell repetitively so if your playing a voc thats supposed to heal or something it usually fails in the most part so balancing always becomes that much more of a pain.

 

[Shadowsong]

I have been seeing some cool projects going on around here, and one of them has lots cool vocations (Necronia, I'm looking at you). And besides how awesome all of these fresh concepts sound, this keeps echoing in my head: "How do they balance it out? Do they have to be balanced?".

Well, since you referred to my server here, I'd be glad to share some insight on how we deal with these things on Necronia.

When you have a lot of vocations to deal with, you have to make sure that they are balanced in all aspects, not just the power ratio (formulas and stuff). For example, 2 vocations might have 10 spells each, and on an average, these spells deal the same amount of damage (on same skill levels, levels, mlvl, etc.)

That is okay. But if one vocation has spells with difficult and complex mechanics, synergies, and combo requirements, and the other one is straight hotkey-spam with no skill required - this is not balanced at all.

In the same sense, we're trying to give each vocation a lot of uniqueness and separation from the other ones, so that playing each vocation feels like a completely new experience, all the while maintaining their power and utility on the level that is required to bring balance to the entire roster.

For example, you have a Saint and a Shadowstriker. Two completely opposite vocations - one is a top support and healer while the other one is a massive DPS dealer & assassin. They will never have the same amount of power in terms of damage output, but if you forge them around a list of characteristics thought out for each vocation, to create a balance between them, then you're on a good way to having a healthy middle ground.

This way you can create a ton of different vocations, and make sure that each of them is as useful in some situations as they are useless in other ones. This gives each vocation a specific role, and with a wide variety of choices, you give players a lot of freedom and selection (which is always a positive thing, since players prefer to "manipulate" the game to their liking as opposed to having a game in which everything is pre-set).

And then, by grouping up and creating teams, they can fill the gaps of each of their vocations and remove their cons once they work together as an unit. However, you must also account for the fact that not all players like to play in a team, so you offer a possibility (a vocation) that can operate on its own without too significant losses.

Perhaps the best, easiest start is to make a list of pros and cons for each vocation, and see if they balance and cancel each other out, then work your way from there and carefully plan a list of abilities for each of them, to make them fit a role better.

In my mind, such a thing involves so many parameters: "how does this vocation make enough money, and if it doesn't, how does it make up for that?", "if a particular vocation hits less per second than the others, does it defend more? How much more?"...

Do you guys come up with formulas or just keep testing your ideas until you're satisfied with the results?

Formulas are a vital part of this entire scheme, but they come at the end, after all the planning. The best way to start (in my opinion) is to take the "weakest" ability of each vocation, and determine some average value of damage/healing it is going to put out. Then, as spells upgrade and become stronger, their formula should evolve from that basic formula that you picked on the beginning. That way, you're always sure that the higher level spells will be more efficient than the lower level ones.

Of course, this might not be your goal. It all depends on what kind of a game you're making and what your goals with the vocations are.

And in the end, of course, there come countless hours of testing and probing which extend themselves until the moment you decide "ok, this feels good, we'll leave it this way". Even after that, you will always get complaints or suggestions about changing this & that. These complaints should not be overlooked, but you shouldn't instantly heed to correct things either. Once you receive a complaint about some spell or vocation being OP, do your best to track that complaint to its core.

What exactly made this player say that about Dragonfire Breath?
How come nobody else complained about this spell before?
Have I made some changes to other vocations that might've put this one in an unbalanced spot?
Does that player still have the beginner gear that doesn't power him up?
Is he skilled enough to be dealing as much damage as he thinks he should?
...
...


But in its essence, balancing is nothing but: creating a plan, initially executing it, testing testing testing, collecting feedback, making changes, testing testing, collecting new feedback, etc.

I hope my views on balancing will help you answer some of those questions that have been bothering you.

 

[foxrother]

Thank you, everyone, for sharing your methods and views about this essential process. I'm sorry for not showing up earlier, I just waited a little bit more to see if other opinions could show up

@Shadowsong Yes. YES! This was the kind of answer I was looking for. You tackled pretty much every doubt I had about balancing vocations.

For example, 2 vocations might have 10 spells each, and on an average, these spells deal the same amount of damage (on same skill levels, levels, mlvl, etc.) That is okay. But if one vocation has spells with difficult and complex mechanics, synergies, and combo requirements, and the other one is straight hotkey-spam with no skill required - this is not balanced at all.

Currently, this is my biggest concern: how to measure the complexity of these systems and then take it into account while planning the vocations?
I surely understand that not everything can be balanced through numbers, but sometimes they provide some clarity...

In the same sense, we're trying to give each vocation a lot of uniqueness and separation from the other ones, so that playing each vocation feels like a completely new experience, all the while maintaining their power and utility on the level that is required to bring balance to the entire roster.

Couldn't agree more with this effort on making every vocation a unique experience. This is what keeps us hooked to the game, after all - the urge to learn, to master everything. Right? x)
That's probably what lacks the most on the OTS paradigm. I'm really sick of realmap servers and poorly-planned custom servers, where every voc lives off area spells and powerleveling (where obviously mages rule)... Even though I respect the latter a bit more, hehe.

This gives each vocation a specific role, and with a wide variety of choices, you give players a lot of freedom and selection (which is always a positive thing, since players prefer to "manipulate" the game to their liking as opposed to having a game in which everything is pre-set).
And then, by grouping up and creating teams, they can fill the gaps of each of their vocations and remove their cons once they work together as an unit. However, you must also account for the fact that not all players like to play in a team, so you offer a possibility (a vocation) that can operate on its own without too significant losses.

Y'know, this is where things started to get a little bit smoky to me. When I was trying to create some vocations, the meaning of 'balance' seemed to shapeshift all the time. Since the trend is to hunt alone lately, I was asking myself if I should focus on a team-centered or a loner-centered gameplay. It looks like the solution Necronia came up with was to give this really broad degree of freedom you mentioned.
You have vocations that are clearly made to work better with a team and vocations that are meant to fit the preference of loners, as well. Hence the number of these marvelous vocations *o*

Perhaps the best, easiest start is to make a list of pros and cons for each vocation, and see if they balance and cancel each other out, then work your way from there and carefully plan a list of abilities for each of them, to make them fit a role better.

I tried do categorize roles and gameplay styles and build it from there, then doing almost the same as you described above.

Now, something that needs to be discussed as well: I'm from the side that says donation items/spells/vocations are terrible and should not exist. I actually prefer to pay for making these unavailable.
Do you think there is a way to implement 'donator advantages' and keep the game fair?

But in its essence, balancing is nothing but: creating a plan, initially executing it, testing testing testing, collecting feedback, making changes, testing testing, collecting new feedback, etc.
I hope my views on balancing will help you answer some of those questions that have been bothering you.

Yep, the text was great. And this last quote is a very neat summary, heh
I wish I had more to say than just "agreed, thanks", but our views intersect in many aspects. Certainly yours are way more polished due to experience, duh! Heheh
And by all means, you guys DO NOT drop what you're developing!

(btw, if something is misspelled or grammatically incorrect, say it, ppl. plx)

 

[Shadowsong]

Currently, this is my biggest concern: how to measure the complexity of these systems and then take it into account while planning the vocations?
I surely understand that not everything can be balanced through numbers, but sometimes they provide some clarity..

How to measure the complexity? Well, it is something that truly depends on the mechanism that system, or in this case, spell, utilizes. Obviously there is no tool to perform these measurements other than you brain, so you have to sit and think about the difference between two spells/systems and determine:

* The amount of input values and effort (what does it take to activate a spell? do you have to aim to land it, or is that automatic? does the activation have any extra requirements or costs? etc.)
* The amount of processing (how complex is the formula of the spell - how many factors does it utilize? does the spell gain extra effects if you have some item equipped? does the spell have different outputs based on a third environmental factor? etc.)
* The amount of output values and efficiency of the result (what is the result of this spell? does it hit multiple targets? does it both hit enemies and heal allies? does it do these things less or more effectively? is this output a viable one for the spell's cost? etc.)

Once these factors balance each other out between 2 things you're comparing, you could say they're properly balanced. But the thing is, you have to stretch this way of thinking onto a broader area - a group of spells of both vocations, instead of one spell. It takes some time to figure it out, but it comes with experience which you will never get if you don't make something first.

Y'know, this is where things started to get a little bit smoky to me. When I was trying to create some vocations, the meaning of 'balance' seemed to shapeshift all the time. Since the trend is to hunt alone lately, I was asking myself if I should focus on a team-centered or a loner-centered gameplay. It looks like the solution Necronia came up with was to give this really broad degree of freedom you mentioned.
You have vocations that are clearly made to work better with a team and vocations that are meant to fit the preference of loners, as well. Hence the number of these marvelous vocations *o*

That is really up to you as a game designer, but we chose that way to appeal to a broader audience and promote teamwork because that is a vital part of the entire idea of Necronia - to bring people to work together. But since we're aware there are those who like to play solo, we had to leave that option for them too.

I tried do categorize roles and gameplay styles and build it from there, then doing almost the same as you described above.

Now, something that needs to be discussed as well: I'm from the side that says donation items/spells/vocations are terrible and should not exist. I actually prefer to pay for making these unavailable.
Do you think there is a way to implement 'donator advantages' and keep the game fair?

There certainly is a way, as long as these advantages are not truly game-changers.
For example, on Necronia, ships travel on a daily schedule. If you want to reach a certain destination, you must arrive between 14:00-17:00 (in-game time) otherwise you'll miss your ride. We have a donator item - a ticket, that lets you use an express travelling service for 1 month, meaning you can travel whenever you want. You can also use this express service by paying 5x the regular travel price to the NPC (ingame money).

Why do I think this item is okay to have?

It doesn't create an imbalance between those who possess the item and those who don't because the option to use the express service is available to both types of players - whether they 5x more with bronze coins or pay real money (which is more valuable than virtual currency) to get this ticket, they chose to pay a price in order to use this service.

This is the kind of stuff you can use to put together a nice donator shop that doesn't empower anyone but gives them a certain benefit, just enough to make the item appealing.

Speaking of appeal, people love to show off. Throw a bunch of outfits/mounts or other aesthetic modifications into your donator shop and you're bound to get some donations for those things that don't change a single thing in the gameplay other than the player's look (or his mount, etc.).

Equipment and other items that modify the character's power should not find their way into a donator shop if you're meaning to have a balanced and fair game. If it really must happen, that they do, there should absolutely be a way to obtain the items of equal or greater power ingame, and for a similar cost.
For example, if you put a shield with 500 defense into the shop and have it cost 5€ - this same shield should be obtainable ingame after 4-7 hours of solid gameplay. Otherwise, you're just creating an unfair and toxic environment that people like to call pay2win, and such games are often harshly criticized and avoided.