Recent Topics

Ads

[Gear] State Stabilization

These proposals have passed an internal review and are implemented in some way on the server. Review for specific implementation details.
User avatar
Collateral
Posts: 1494

Re: State stabilization.

Post#101 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:32 pm

As I understand, what I'm about to post doesn't have much to do with what is being asked, but I think it touches on the topic a bit, and raises points for futher discussions.
Spoiler:
I agree that this is a major part of overall game balancing. And while I can't say much about core game mechanics as I don't grasp them too well (I never even reached rr 50 on live), there is something I want to add.

When people talk about all this high rr gear and how imbalanced and OP it is, few really look at the core game system itself. Now bear with me for a second. On live, max rr was 100. Most people, especialy new players, reach T4 with around the same rr as their lvl. So that rank is around 32 (although even more common case is that the rr is actually LOWER than the lvl). That is only 32% of the total amount their character can achieve, and they are already in the top tier of the game, competing with the top players (I think we all agree how incredibly stupid this concept is).

Now I know that the devs have absolutely no intetion of bringing back rr 100 (and I agree), but even with max rr being 80, the average player will still only be at 40% (again, in most cases even lower) of their progression when they hit the top tier. So basically, 60% OF ALL progress is contained in only ONE tier. That is still a pretty big discrepancy, and I think it would, yet again, prove to be too big. And what's even worse, that tier is the 'end-game' tier.

So what I'm thinking here, is that tier progressioin should be inherently linked to the players rr, and not their lvl. This would make it so much more easier to balance the gear imho (and with it the game). No longer would you have to worry about the insane power creep at high renown ranks. You also wouldn't have to come up with so many different buffs or debuffs for players palying against higher or lower ranking ones. And I also believe it's easier to balance low lvl gear and a bit lower lvl gear, than it is to balance super high lvl gear with quite lower lvl gear. I believe that the root cause of all that imbalance is exectly the tier system. Don't get me wrong though, gear would still require balancing, but as I said, I think it would be easier to do it.

What the problem here could be though, is that the entire tier system should be changed. With that would come gear balancing for every tier, and not just T4. And in the end it would probably require a bit more work (I really have no idea how much work it would actually require), but the game itself would be more balanced as it is. I think it's far more easier to balance tiers that are, how would I say it, balanced I guess. A good idea would be to make it a 60/40 system, so basically inverse from what it is now (60% for lower tiers and 40% for endgame tier). That would mean that you would be able to enter T4 only with rr 48. You could round it up to 50 for easier gear balance, so it would be 62/38 system. That would truly mean that END game happens at T4, and not 60% of the game happens at T4.


One other major thing about my concept - I have no clue if the tier progression can actually be linked to rr. If not, all of this can be thrown into the wind :P
Last edited by Collateral on Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ads
Penril
Posts: 4441

Re: State stabilization.

Post#102 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:13 pm

I won't delete your post since at least you were kind enough to spoiler it for us. But general rule in the Balance forum should be: if you think your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed, then don't post at all.

User avatar
Collateral
Posts: 1494

Re: State stabilization.

Post#103 » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:20 pm

Penril wrote:I won't delete your post since at least you were kind enough to spoiler it for us. But general rule in the Balance forum should be: if you think your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed, then don't post at all.
Yea understood, althoug I might have been too harsh in saying it has 'nothing' to do with what is being discussed, i.e. with what Aza asked us to post. So I will go ahead and edit it a bit.

User avatar
porkstar
Posts: 721

Re: State stabilization.

Post#104 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:28 am

Spoiler:
Thayli wrote:These are the questions we want answered:

- Is state imbalance something that exists as outlined in the OP?
- Should this be addressed at all? Why (not)?
- Are the suggested solutions acceptable? Why (not)?
[/quote]
I think the inconsistent ground state exists but sometimes I think its difficult to notice for a couple reasons; we'd gotten used to the ridiculous state of AoR Live and learned to deal with it, and the gear level is currently low and RR is relatively low. The inconsistent ground state is not yet evident in it's extreme.

If by creating a consistent ground state now, we can avoid bottom-end creep of gear, release new gears, continue to develop and balance mastery trees, fix tome accessory stats/bonus (my personal fetish), fix renown rewards, and in the end satisfy people's desire for a sense of progression, I would agree to address this issue immediately. Especially since very smart people are willing to work on this right NOW. Alternatively, if we wait until SOV (1-2 yrs??) any number of things could happen to the development and we could be left with a sad, broken Live clone.

I agree with OP's comments on customization. In the end, there's really only one best gear/stat combo for any particular job. The only significant variances occur depending on your level/type of direct support (who's in your group or who you're fighting). In which case, it usually involves switching out a tactic or a tankier set of gear. If the developers can achieve a "stabilized state" to their satisfaction and then once again start to focus on fixing mastery trees by keeping balance forums open, that's the best news I've heard yet. Because when it comes to customization, isn't three viable and functional mastery trees per class the actual customization we've all been longing for?

With regards to implementation of gear tier vs gear tier or secondary specialization stats, this is a bit out of my realm of expertise since math and game theory were always secondary specializations for me in rl. However, the developers have been doing a pretty good and TRANSPARENT job of working out RvR rewards systems. They've been willing to quickly admit when changes weren't good and also recognize good changes. They readily share the functions used to calculate the end result.
Spoiler:
Image
Vagreena Auntie Dangercat
Porkstar Hamcat Coolwave
Penril wrote:So you are saying that a class you never touched is OP?
Go play it before posting about it pal...

User avatar
blaqwar
Posts: 471

Re: State stabilization.

Post#105 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:31 am

@Stilton:
Err, I'm not sure this is relevant. Spoilered just in case it isn't.

Edit: Deleted the spoiler because I'm sure it's not relevant and a huge wall of text. You seem to be conflicted in your thoughts and I don't think proving you wrong would serve this discussion. We'll have to agree to disagree. :)

User avatar
Stmichael1989
Posts: 184

Re: State stabilization.

Post#106 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:08 am

I was waiting so long for this one to finally get moved, and it blows up before I can post.

Az hit the nail on the head in his assessment. Class balance changes dramatically with available gear level. If you were to plot things like time-to-kill against even geared attackers as a function of gear level, it would fluctuate pretty wildly. Then certain gear levels give enough stats to allow other tactics to work. As an example, sufficiently geared healers on live could get enough willpower through base gear plus stacking set bonuses to allow them to focus on stacking armor and toughness. That's how you ended up with warrior priests tanking 2 full groups of people without breaking a sweat.

Armor values in specific were a big issue. I don't have the specific numbers from my old world of warcraft raiding days, but people actually did the math on this sort of thing. Long story short, effective health (amount of raw damage needed to kill you) grew exponentially with armor. Put another way, each extra percent of damage mitigation through armor is worth more in terms of survivability than the point before it.

Since WAR caps damage mitigation at 75% with any overflow serving only to pad against debuffs and weaponskill, this doesn't become too much of a problem early on as tanks are the only ones who can get that level of mitigation. Where it becomes a problem is when you get things like sovereign clad medium (and even light) armor classes stacking armor talismans for close to 75% damage mitigation. That just breaks down any notion of game balance.

Definitely should normalize gear. My vote is for horizontal progression ala team fortress 2 with each set providing different stats and set bonuses for a different play style. The advantages of horizontal progression are readily apparent. New content without power creep, ability to perform class balance across all gear levels all at once, increase character customization options, access to more class balance options through gear, etc.

Say for example (and this is a very rough example to illustrate the point) that we make Annihilator the well rounded set. It balances offensive and defensive stats and gives a good amount of overall utility. Then we go to Conqueror which changes the focus to survivability with a wounds and armor set bonus, chance to proc absorbs shields, etc. Invader is the opposite with an offensive focus, giving crit chance, melee/ranged/magic power. Warlord is a utility set with things like movement speed and AP regen. Then for sovereign you get some exotic options like procs, CC reduction, etc.

Obviously it would need some work, but it's a proven system.
StMichael - 40 Warrior Priest
Elhim - 40 Shadow Warrior
Cullexus - 40 Witch Hunter
Teuton Codpiece - 40 Knight
Gritkicker - 40 Slayer

sotora
Posts: 320

Re: State stabilization.

Post#107 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:25 am

blaqwar wrote: In simple terms, if a guy in Anni can dish out 300 DPS (or HPS or any other combat performance metric) to another guy in Anni and the abilities and scaling secondary stats (crit, parry, crit damage) are balanced according to that - which is what the community and the devs are doing in the balance forums - then this balance will be broken if a guy in Sov can dish out a 1000 DPS to another guy in Sov.
I see.

Problem I see with this is that this change in balance once new gear comes in might be one of most interesting things in gear progression.

So if that is changed into a situation in which new gear just adds you power to gank lesser geared players but balance is exactly the same in Warlord like it was in Annihilator with ppl doing same damage, heal, avoidance, etc to equally geared players - then it actually might make game less interesting to plenty of players.

Not sure - but I think that might hapeen. After all there is some reason we PVP in an MMORPG rather than in FPS or RTS in which gear is non-existant or stabilized / normalized and I doubt only/main reason of PVP in MMORPG is cause you can own lesser geared players until they grind out current tier of gear.

User avatar
blaqwar
Posts: 471

Re: State stabilization.

Post#108 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:22 pm

sotora wrote:
blaqwar wrote: In simple terms, if a guy in Anni can dish out 300 DPS (or HPS or any other combat performance metric) to another guy in Anni and the abilities and scaling secondary stats (crit, parry, crit damage) are balanced according to that - which is what the community and the devs are doing in the balance forums - then this balance will be broken if a guy in Sov can dish out a 1000 DPS to another guy in Sov.
I see.

Problem I see with this is that this change in balance once new gear comes in might be one of most interesting things in gear progression.

So if that is changed into a situation in which new gear just adds you power to gank lesser geared players but balance is exactly the same in Warlord like it was in Annihilator with ppl doing same damage, heal, avoidance, etc to equally geared players - then it actually might make game less interesting to plenty of players.

Not sure - but I think that might hapeen. After all there is some reason we PVP in an MMORPG rather than in FPS or RTS in which gear is non-existant or stabilized / normalized and I doubt only/main reason of PVP in MMORPG is cause you can own lesser geared players until they grind out current tier of gear.
I agreee, this is what I pointed out as the only issue I can see with the proposal (in my first post). The longevity of WAR very much depends on freshness of the combat, as much as it does on new content (in the form of gear) and relative balance between tiers of content (if newbies are getting trashed too hard and the better tiers of gear are very hard to farm the game dies out, it needs casual players). This change would very much help with the last two but I fear it would kill the metagame. When the careers are balanced out the amount of variables introduced into the game will drop down to almost 0 even with new sets and items, especially since they'll have to conform to the axiom of "customization always yields to balance", which is in the OP.

I don't know to what degree it would be possible to implement sideways progression and customization in those sets via set bonuses. I imagine if those managed to bring to light new playstyles to careers it could work (for example make a SM set that boosts the power of the healing tactics, making a group healing playstyle for him actually useful). I imagine this would be very difficult and comes with a caveat that you'd be making certain sets mandatory for certain career playstyles and preventing them from wearing progressively better sets.

Ads
User avatar
Azarael
Posts: 5332

Re: State stabilization.

Post#109 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:39 pm

With respect to the above comment about meta stagnation, consider the following:

1) Balance changes themselves cause meta shifts, gear isn't necessary for that. I used balance changes and reworks alone to keep a game with no gear progression alive for a number of years. Actually balancing any kind of game is very difficult, so there will always be some kind of change to make.

2) Even if the game's elements were perfectly balanced, the sheer number of viable options and combinations available in such a game would create significant depth.

Stilton
Posts: 41

Re: State stabilization.

Post#110 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:41 pm

Spoiler:
blaqwar wrote:@Stilton:
... I don't think proving you wrong would serve this discussion. We'll have to agree to disagree. :)
Will we?
Not trying to be a **** here but, do you think it's possible to 'prove me wrong' when i basically gave my personal subjective reasons for why i play the game and tried to explain to you that other people think differently and therefore might have differing opinions but yet might still be 'correct' from their perspective?

I think this is -very- relevant, if people can't see to empathize with their fellow posters i cant imagine how rational discussion is supposed to take place in this balance forum.

If you think you can 'prove me wrong' about my reasoning for playing the game in the first place.. i welcome the pm / post here.


Again, Before you go about trying to 'prove people wrong' about the 'objective truth' as to 'why everyone plays war' -- maybe consider that 2 people can look at the same situation, give their opinion and both be 'right' whilst both accurately describing the same situation from their perspective.

Now, use that logic to as a basis for discussions here and the result with be healthier.
No need for this.
Spoiler:
So, TLDR?


I'm not conflicted; my point(s):

- I agree gear grind _is_ a part of mmo gameplay, but i dont feel its a positive gameplay pillar that should be embraced.. Especially it shouldn't have the massive influence it does on balancing / power that it does now.. Classes should be defined by what they are, not what they're wearing..


- To say 'without the gear grind there is nothing to play for' : is a subjective oversimplification on more than one level.
You can't even guess my reasoning/draw for playing. ( To further this, i would still play, if all the gear stats were nerfed ).





I dont get new virtual shoes when i win a 5v5 on counterstrike, yet i'm still playing that after 15 years? Didn't gear reward used to be a prize/bonus for winning the fight...

Not the sole motivation for playing the entire game?



Finally, just so i'm clear? We're not trying to 'win' discussions right?
We're here trying to find some answer to the 'balance' problem right? Not like +1 each other?
Neither. We are here to try to debunk OP's reasoning, with a valid argument. You post basically boils down to a "+1" to OP, and your only reason is: "there are other motivations besides gear" - Penril

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest