imbalance
Latest
Behind the Mask: What does unbalanced even mean?
One of the major criticisms of Champions Online is a lack of game balance. People claim that the phrase "your own hero, your own story" doesn't cover the fact that your hero might be a gimp compared to someone else's. Although archetypes have their own balance issues (even among themselves), this complaint most commonly leveled at the freeform game where there are millions of possible characters. However, I think that most armchair game theorists have a terrible understanding of what "balance" even means. Decades of competitive gaming (yeah, I'm that old) have given me a comprehensive understanding of what the term means, and I think it's worth looking at how CO stacks up.
Lost Pages of Taborea: Balancing vs. viable vs. fun
Thoughts of class-balancing, class-viability and triple-class combinations have been swimming in my head lately. In the wake of RIFT's open beta, Frogster announced that Runes of Magic will be moving to a triple-class system in early April. Along with a lot of speculation on how this will change RoM, there's talk of how badly three-class combos will upset class-balancing where some already feel classes are skewed. Viable and balanced are pretty subjective terms in the MMO genre that make it hard for any two players to be on the same page. I find it even more confusing when some make it sound like there's a mass exodus to RIFT because of -- in part -- the idea that RoM's classes are more out of tune than yours truly trying to sing Zombie. These ideas are highly speculative. I'd like to throw my own opinions in about what makes a class in RoM viable, what not to look for when trying to find balance, and why we may not want to squeeze every possible class combination into the holy trinity of healer, DPS and tank.
Breakfast Topic: The grass is greener
I had a really bad Battlegrounds run today. About three hours of various Battlegrounds without winning a single one. There are days like this, when I think to myself that the Alliance have it so much better. I mean, it's a miracle on our Battlegroup when the Horde wins Alterac Valley. On the other hand, I know that in some Battlegroups, the Horde probably lord it over. I have to admit there are days when we go on long winning streaks (except in Alterac...). That said, there's always that speck of envy. Well, in the case of myself and the Alliance, it's less envy than it is consternation.For the longest time, my wife envied the Alliance for the Sprite Darter Hatchling, but that's going to get straightened out soon enough. We also used to whine how the Alliance got the Winterspring Frostsabers, while the Horde never quite got the Venomhide Ravasaurs (we still might, though!). A lot of little things make us think that Blizzard favors one faction over the other. This seems to be true of other classes, as well. No matter what happens, for some reason, there's always something that other classes have that the class you play doesn't. I know I'll always whine about a Death Knight's 1 second GCD in PvP. Among other things, I mean. I know how some players cry foul at the bubble. There's always something. Of course, it's really silly to think that there's any sort of favoritism going on (for the record, I don't think there's any), but we'll always find that the grass is greener on the other side. So, in what aspects of the game do you think the other faction or classes have it easier?
WAR's cross-server scenario queues akin to socialism
Warhammer Online, despite a very smooth launch, has a few nagging problems that have cropped up in its first weeks of life. Chief among its growing pains is the problem of scenario queuing issues, both on barren servers and the ones that are practically choking on players. Snafzg over at The Greenskin asks if creating a better situation for all Warhammer Online players must entail some degree of sacrifice made by all through cross-server scenario queues, likening the solution to socialism. A situation where the 'good servers' sacrifice for the benefit of 'problem servers'. Snafzg writes, "I'm not saying socialism is bad... but I wonder if there are alternative solutions that don't punish (too strong a word?) people on good servers for the benefit of those on bad servers. I don't envy Mythic here... Make one crowd happy only to piss off another?" He also points out that the core issues of server population imbalance impact the game on many levels, and suggests some potential solutions for both overpopulation and underpopulation issues. If you're not happy with the scenario frequency in Warhammer Online, give Snafzg's "Cross-Server Scenario Socialism..." post a read, and let him know if you agree with his views on the issue. Did you enjoy this? Make sure to check out our Warhammer guides: Massively's Character Creation Guide and our WoW Player's Guide to Warhammer. Plus, don't miss any of our ongoing coverage as Massively goes to WAR!
Which WAR faction favors more mature players?
It's generally accepted as common knowledge that Horde players in World of Warcraft are, by and large, the more mature of the two factions. Whether or not this is actually supported by hard data is a matter of debate, but the logic says that older players are the ones best able to overlook the stigma of playing races long-perceived to be the "bad guys." There are mouth-breathers no matter what faction you roll, but perception is what it is.We've been watching a poll over at Warhammer Alliance that sought to identify a specific age correlation between the two factions amongst the hardcore Warhammer Online community. With just over 2100 votes cast at the time of writing this, we did find an interest trend. Although Destruction was more popular than Order in every demographic, the disparity between the two become decreasingly pronounced as you move up in the age bracket. The ratio went from 1.7:1 in the 12-16 bracket to 1.5:1 amongst those 17-25 to 1.3:1 for ages 26-35, finally to 1.1:1 in the 35+ bracket. Does this mean Order will be the faction of choice for older players? Definitely too early to tell, but this early data is intriguing.
Forum post of the Day: E-Sportsmanship
I played softball when I was just a little mandy. I was in right field, and I wasn't particularly good, but I had a blast playing. Some how I came out of it with a few championship trophies and a lot of great memories. At the conclusion of each of our games we would line up as a team and slap hands with the opposition. "Good game. Good Game. Good Game. Good Game. Good Game." I'm sure that a number of you have had similar experiences. We were taught to be good sports when we won and when we lost. The fascinating part of an esport is that we are not face to face. Rather than bringing out our magnanimous natures, we tend to get cranky in the wake of a loss, and sometimes even after a victory. Karelle of Hydraxis admitted in the general forums the he is a poor loser. He felt he was unjustly beaten by a team that overgeared him and was insulted when the team leader whispered "good game." Rather than repeating the greeting, the original poster /spit on the victor.
The AV map imbalance in patch 2.3
Alterac Valley has never been completely balanced. Before patch 2.3, most people generally agreed that the map favored the Alliance, but now, we can see that it favors the Horde. The difference mainly lies in which parts of the map are most important, and how either side can use the terrain differences to win the game. Before, the only way to win the game was to kill the opposing faction's general; anything less was effectively an on-going stalemate. But now that we have reinforcements, the general will automatically die of grief and shame once too many towers fall and players bite the dust, regardless of whether he's actually seen the enemy or not. This seemingly simple shift has totally turned the faction imbalance on its head, and placed the game entirely in Horde hands to prosecute as they choose. Assuming a relative equality of gear, player skill and morale (and of course AFKers), the Horde can decide to make AV a slow but certain victory, or else toss the dice and make it a quick but uncertain race to the end. Keep reading to see how they do it, and why the Horde can't play their ultimate best if they want to play at all.
The red-headed step-children of crafting
Today I made my first two pieces of Shadowcloth. It's quite an accomplishment for my level 62 warlock, with the somewhat dangerous trek out to the Altar of Shadows. As I was feeling the roaring winds of the air elementals snap at my behind as I rode, I began to wonder if I shouldn't have chosen one of the other two paths instead. It's a lot of work to jog on out to the Altar, and you take your life into your hands every time you do. Somehow the three disciplines seem somewhat uneven. Had I chosen Mooncloth tailoring, my travel time would include a small jaunt out to the Cenarian Refuge and a dip in the Moonwell.
World of Warcraft's list of useless classes
Elizabeth Wachowski over at WoW Insider put together one of the more definitive pieces ever done on the useless classes in World of Warcraft. Scrounging together the best of the worst threads from the upcoming Burning Crusade expansion forums, Wachowski shows that every class is worthless for one reason or another, or another -- or another. She lists the reasons, with multiple hyperlinks. Anyone who's ever read or listened to complaints about classes in WoW will get a good giggle, or fume with rage; adding more reasons to why Warlocks are overpowered and why Mages are worthless because they're being out-DPSed by shadow priests.Whatever Blizzard is doing with World of Warcraft, they're obviously on the right path. With seven million players currently paying $15 a month, that's a cool $1.26 billion going in the Ironforge vault every year. Burning Crusade launches on Jan 16 and we can't wait to see how Blizzard distributes the millions of copies necessary to satiate even 50 percent of players. Complaining about classes will be the last thing on WoW addict minds when they can't get their Burning Crusade fix at launch.
Alliance/Horde Ratio Over Time
PlayOn has some interesting data on the ratio of Alliance to Horde players on different server types over the course of about six months. The numbers are surprisingly stable over time, with PvP samples being close on 1-to-1 and PvE samples being nearer 2-to-1. However, this data only makes me more curious as to what the numbers will look like after the Burning Crusade is released, when shamans and paladins are available to both factions.
Breakfast Topic: Fixing Faction Imbalance
Blizzard's announcement yesterday that the Horde would have access to paladins and the Alliance would have access to shaman has been getting mixed responses on the forums. Some seem to find this the most equitable solution to faction imbalances - now each side will have access to the same classes and abilities. Others, however, think that with this change there will be no longer be any defining difference between the Horde and the Alliance, and that you may well flip a coin to decide which to play. For myself, I remain undecided - and am adopting a wait-and-see approach to watch how Blizzard plans to run with this change.While this is one way to address the continued concerns of Horde players with regards to PvE imbalance, but it certainly wasn't the only way they may have gone about improving the situation. And so, readers, if left to your hands, how would you have addressed the issue? Is there another way to help bring a bit more PvP power to the Alliance and a bit more PvE power to the Horde, while maintaining their sense of uniqueness?
The Future of the Horde?
Fellow Troll Silvertusk points out the growing dissatisfaction of Horde players, which has only become louder since the 1.12 patch notes arrived on the scene. After being told by CM Eyonix that no changes were being made for shamans in patch 1.12, the patch notes say otherwise - the windfury totem receives an additional change this patch which allows it only to proc off normal melee attacks. Estimates on how bad this change will be range wildly, but Eyonix responds that the change was felt necessary because the burst damage of those under its effect was simply too high. But many shamans, and Horde players in general, are taking the change hard - seeing it as the last straw against those who were attempting to PvE on the Horde side. And, while many will respond instantly that the Alliance are better at PvE and the Horde are better at PvP, the continued changes make some wonder whether end-game raid content is something Horde can do at all. And, before you say "Go PvP and QQ more noob!" it may be worth taking a look at this post - which provides a serious and well-reasoned comparison of the ability of Horde and Alliance raids. If you've only played Alliance - or if you've only played Horde! - it's worth having a look at how the other side works.[Fan art by Romain De Santi]
