What's the deal with balance?

[Anonymous]

Gifted. Fast Shot. Small Weapons. Laser Weapons. Pick Lock. Agility = 10

Gifted, Small Frame, Perception and Agility 10, rest atleast 5. Tag Small Guns, Big Guns, Steal, then use Tag! to Tag Laser Weapons later on.

Uber muchkin experience.

 

[Spazmo]

Your tags are all stupid. Just tag Small Guns, Energy Weapons and Speech and you're set. I always take Fast Shot because it rocks.

 

[Psilon]

Fast Shot + 10AG (after operation) + Bonus Rate of Fire + Turbo Plasma Rifle = FUN!

That said, it is feasible to take Lockpick, Steal, or even Science as the third skill (Small Guns and Speech as the other two), and then tag Energy Weapons at level 12. That's what I did my last time around.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Never tag Energy Weapons in Fallout. That's idiotic. Dump a lot of normal points in to Energy Weapons along the way, then use the Tag! Perk, which doubles ALL those points. It's really easy to end up with a 200+ Energy Weapons skill like that, and that perk ignores the drawbacks for 100+ of a skill.

 

[Anonymous]

Steal is handy if you steal off everyone, you can get a few levels, a bunch of money and stimpacks and gear after the first town in either Fallout.

 

[undead dolphin hacker]

Figured I'd finally weigh in as I'm the one credited to bringing this subject to a head...

Just like in life, some paths, choices, and professions are more difficult but they offer certain rewards and advantages that make them more appealing to some people. Is there anything wrong with that?

Not at all, VD. I totally agree with you.

There's one honking big problem with that, though--the suspension of disbelief, or to use RPG jargon, the desire to metagame, (where the player plays his character using knowledge he as a player has about the game mechanics--ie, if I'd heard the module I was playing had a sweet +3 Mace in it, and I made my character spec into Maces with the intent of picking that up, I'd be metagaming), gets in the way. Big time. I'll explain below.

Now, I'm still having that delusion that I'm making a game, and in my game, for example, being a knight (profession, not a class) who serves a noble house is much much easier then being a merc who is on his own. Imo, as long as you are given a choice, and your choice is supported, it's fine. Any thoughts?

You're on the right track with the choice business. The player must always have a choice, all the choices must be supported to a conclusion, and I'd like to add, all choices must have seperate and unique effects on the game's world.

Here's what I believe, though. In terms of game mechanics, all choices must be equal, or as close as you can get. Your knight/mercenary dichotomy is close, but it's falling victim to one thing: your own take on the issue. Stay out of the player's game. You might think it's easier being a knight guarding some castle, but another player might think it's hell, because you're not your own person, you're just the king's lapdog, or whatnot. The game is not for you. The game is for a thousand other people who think nothing like you. Don't make choices for them by saying "Oh, well a Knight would have had it easier."

Balance issues should exist in every game--but these issues should be between the player and his character. You want to make the player's stomach turn as he watches his fellow raiders murder children and rape the mothers. You want to make a player's ambition stir when he's the sole bedroom guard of a weak and foolish king. You do NOT want to assume that a Knight's path would be any "easier" in terms of combat or obstacles when compared to a Mercenary's. Obstacles should be balanced for every path--for every good, there is an evil willing to thwart it, and for every evil, there is a good willing to stop it. Don't do otherwise.

It's my belief that a player's character should reflect the player himself. Don't hold punches when it comes to giving the player choices. Tempt the Knight with ambitions of power. Let the Mercenary have a chance to kill his compatriots in order to avenge the innocents slain. Always let the player have a choice to change the path he's on, then make the paths as visceral and real as possible.

DON'T leave mechanics unbalanced, it tears the player out of immersion like a newborn being yanked through a C-section. DO leave "paths" unbalanced. Force the player to either become his character or change--without fail, the player will feel closer to his character this way, and thus be more engrossed in your story, and have a more enjoyable time.

 

[Stark]

some interesting discussion here but for one angle i think is missing:

the reward system shld be fair (or more or less fair) for all career choices. the game itself may be harder for some careers while easier on others, but the end rewards shld more or less be fair.

take for example the choice between talking diplomatically to evade a fight vs actually killing the enermy. the reward for both cases shld be comparable. imagine u sweet talk out of a fight with a village of goblins, and gain 200 exp pts, vs alternative of wipping out the whole village of goblins for 2000 exp pts, (not to mention all the resultant loot). even if the diplomatic path is useful (as in, u get to use it alot) player may just feel they're not being rewarded for their career choice.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

I tag small guns, speech and lockpick. bring energy weapons, doctor and science (using books) up as much as possible and tag energy weapons at level 12. Also taking fast shot makes combat too easy. Gifted and small frame, or finesse if you want to really cause a lot of pain at higher levels.


It makes sense that if you play a diplomat you won't get as much l00t but I agree with the xp issue. You should get a comparable (edit:clarification) xp reward to just wiping out the place.

 

[Spazmo]

I disagree. A diplomat, by his very nature, doesn't need as much loot. If he's going to talk his way through everything, what's he need the +27 sword for? Maybe for intimidation--maybe--but it'd be cheaper to buy a big, fake, wooden sword for that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Here's what I believe, though. In terms of game mechanics, all choices must be equal, or as close as you can get. Your knight/mercenary dichotomy is close, but it's falling victim to one thing: your own take on the issue. Stay out of the player's game. You might think it's easier being a knight guarding some castle, but another player might think it's hell, because you're not your own person, you're just the king's lapdog, or whatnot. The game is not for you. The game is for a thousand other people who think nothing like you. Don't make choices for them by saying "Oh, well a Knight would have had it easier."

I don't decide what's easy and what's not. My approach to that was described in this thread. Every situation has a number of logical outcomes. I provide them, you pick what fits your character. Simple as that. Naturally, being associated with a powerful House is easier then being with a lesser faction or on your own. Don't get me wrong though, just because you joined a certain faction doesn't mean that you won't have any problems whatsoever.

You do NOT want to assume that a Knight's path would be any "easier" in terms of combat or obstacles when compared to a Mercenary's.

There is no difference in combat, assuming that both characters are equally skilled (it's a skill-based system). As for the obstacles, assuming that all characters are equal and all factions are equal seems wrong to me. That's too fantasy-ish to me. Different paths= different problems, different but not balanced advantages and disadvantages that could be affected by your skills. Example: a knight who is as good at etiquette as he's good with a sword would have easier time then a knight who talks straight.

Always let the player have a choice to change the path he's on, then make the paths as visceral and real as possible.

Yep, choices, lotsa choices.

 

[Flink]

I don't think the loot/exp. rewards need to be balanced either. I dunno about you guys, but when I play an RPG, I think up a character and try as hard as I can to play as if I was him/her, rewards be damned.

If I play a diplomat, I take the diplomatic route, even if it means that I only get 200 exp. points instead of 2000 exp. + Loot. If the game is good, I can always play as a blood thirsty son of a bitch the next time around and slaugter the goblins and enjoy that outcome, just as satisfied that I've stayed in character.
Granted, there should be a choice. It should always be the player who desides if he wants to break out of character, not the game itself.

 

[mr. lamat]

i think i tagged speech, science and repair, while throwing random points into small guns every other level. carried the .223 around for 9/10ths of the game. my perks were gifted and fast shot. my int was around 8-9 and personality was at 10.

there wasn't a great bunch of use for my skills, but they did open up some interesting paths and xp rewards now and then.

 

[Flink]

Whats the deal with everyone picking Fast Shot anyway? I'm more of a "aim for the eyes with finesse" kinda guy personally...

 

[Spazmo]

I'd rather shoot more often than for more damage--especially with a weapon like the turbo plasma rifle which will deliver lots of damage anyways.

 

[Transcendent One]

I usually go with fast shot myself, it feels to me like one AP off of every shot does add up. The only problem is that you can't aim. I am not a fan of Fallout's combat as it is, and no aiming just takes away what little tactics the combat has.

 

[mr. lamat]

my character was already a poor shot... around 50% until level 10 or so. the more shooting and healing i could get done in a round, the better. aiming wouldn't have made a lick of difference.

 

[Flink]

Man, all this talk about Fallout is starting to get to me. I think I'll fire up Fallout 2 again soon, it was ages since I played it since I've always liked the first game better. I'll really try to role-play this time around... Perhaps a serious attempt at a drug-addict character...

 

[Elwro]

I took Fast Shot when I played for the first time and wondered why all the people were talking about called shots. Then I read the manual and since then my hero always leaves behind him hordes of fallen enemies whose bodies would seem perfectly intact if it wasn't for the eyes...

 

[Llyranor]

Hmm, I guess balance isn't that big a deal for me, at least usually. Maybe that's one of the reasons why I could have enjoyed Arcanum so much (even more than Fallout, though perhaps it was also because I played the former first). Combat wasn't particularly memorable, though, as I would mostly play the game in RT and let my cronies do all the work, only occasionally switching to TB to cast some spells. The bland battle system barely affected, if at all, my impressions on the game. I guess I don't play RPGs (or at least this type of RPGs) for the combat, and balance doesn't really matter in this instance.

 

[Nick]

In conclusion, Flashback, don't worry about every character being equally powerful or being able to solve every puzzle with every possible skillset. Make sure your skills are useful and fun... get rid of skills that can only be used once or twice in the entire game. Make sure you don't put in bottlenecks that require one specific skill that a player may not have. And if it's a fantasy game, don't get all fixated on swords.

Oh, don't worry about that at all. There'll be too many absolutely different weapon to concentrate on something one like... sword. Speaking about powerful weapon-artifacts, there'll be enough of such cold weapon, firearms and useful spells. Swords won't be better than their "relatives": spears, maces, daggers...

 

[Azarkon]

A developer should always be thinking about what makes a class or skill worth the player's time. In a single-player game it's not about class vs. class power, as in a SP environment such a form of balance is largely pointless. However, to disregard power altogether is naive. Nietzsche argued, in one of his unpublished manuscripts, that the meaning of life is the Will to Power. Whether he was right about life is up for debate, but he's got a point with respect to games. In my experience, power is a significant attraction for gamers, and one could easily argue that the Will to Power is the underlying assumption beneath all RPG rulesets.

Still, balance in a single-player game is more than pure combat power - if you can simply give each class/skill its own unique perks that differentiate it from other classes/skills in a non-superficial way, that should be enough. Power, in other words, is more than physical - at least in a full-fledged RPG. Yet why did you mention action RPGs as the example of a genre where balance of pure physical power *is* important? I'd argue that you're onto the same idea - power is always important, but it's not always represented in the same way. In an action RPG, combat prowess is the only form of power. In a full RPG, there are other avenues of power.

Being able to do something that someone else can't is a form of power, and is in fact the best definition of power with respect to RPGs. Approaching a fortress of orcs, a rogue might choose to sneak by, steal the treasure, and leave - while a wizard would merely teleport in and wipe everyone out with fireballs. Both options are a demonstration of power. Yet imagine, now, if the wizard can CHOOSE between wiping out the entire fortress or sneaking in rogue-style, while the rogue can't ever choose to wipe out the fortress. Assuming that this microcosmic example is the only disparity between the classes, all else being equal, then what we have is a legitimate balance issue - even in a single-player game. Why should I play the rogue, in this case, if by playing the wizard I can do all that he can do?

Balance in a single player game is thus about making every path interesting, fun, and most of all, UNIQUE. I don't really care whether my rogue can reach the level of sheer power my UberMunchkinWizard can; I care about whether the two paths are different enough to each offer a a distinctive experience that I can't get from the other class. If not, then I face the same quandary - why should I play a class that can do less than another, all else being equal?

In other words, always ask yourself this: why should I play class/skill X, instead of class/skill Y? The answer should be longer than "because you're roleplaying X," because it's a pretty big given that you're not going to give extensive roleplaying opportunities to every single class/skill in the game. In this situation, it is necessary to remember Nietzsche's words: "[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power..."

 

[galsiah]

I don't see this as too much of a problem for a game like AoD, since many actions have long term consequences (right?). If the long term consequences (or the player's perception of them) of an action are different, the player will decide on that basis rather than on the difficulty / material reward.

I think it's important to make the player aware up front where there are imbalances though. For instance, if it's much easier to side with a House than to go it alone, that should be made fairly clear to the player quite early on.
Personally I'd find it more harmful to immersion for choices to make no difference to game difficulty - e.g. joining a House probably should make things easier overall. It'll just mean some loss of freedom.

Clearly you should make sure that any somewhat reasonable path through the game can be enjoyed. I don't think each path needs to have equal difficulty/reward though (either material or otherwise). They just all need to be within reasonable limits, and the player should usually be aware when he's making things easy/hard for himself (though occasional surprises are fine, of course).

One of the most important areas to balance IMO is the point buy character progression system. I don't think it's too bad if there are some skills which certain characters won't consider increasing. I think there should very rarely be one obviously optimal choice for any character though. I doubt this'll be a problem(?).

 

[Gambler]

I played it many times, and I didn't have any problems playing ranged techno characters.

Tech characters were okay. Mages were boring. They were way too easy, especially once you had something like annihilate. A game should not hand you something that allows you to abuse the system.

If I play a diplomat, I take the diplomatic route, even if it means that I only get 200 exp. points instead of 2000 exp.

This will screw up your character in the long run. And, if it's a usual game, sooner or later you will come to a point when you must fight. That's where you will feel the pain.

It's like playing mage in a D&D game. Yes, mages are much more interesting than fighters, but they are pathetically weak. (The only D&D game I know of where mages had appropriate strength was Torment.) And sooner or later it starts to break the game experience, because you need to abuse the system in all possible ways to get through. (I wil never forget my final battle in BG2.)

 

[Slylandro]

I guess it depends on how you define balance. If you mean in terms of difficulty (as VD has apparently defined it), sure, I don't see any problem with having certain classes or professions or skills being easier or more usefu (within reason)l than others. In the world of Arcanum, it was especially appropriate for magic to dominate tech because the whole idea was a magical world undergoing industrialization, not the other way around. Tech was still in its infancy.

The problem with Arcanum though actually went beyond balance. Even playing as a high level mage with all the power of the Force, Fire, Conveyance, Summoning, and Temporal colleges behind me, combat lacked the distinctly fun and tactical feel of other games like say Icewind Dale or ToEE which came later. Combat, as an Arcanum mage, wasn't much more fun than combat as a techie, it was just less tedious.

Back to the point, VD, you're right in pointing out that the most important thing is that a player's choice or character build is supported. But I think that it makes sense to judge to what extent a choice or character build is supported by how difficult it is to stick to that choice. I wouldn't go so far as to say that anything should be perfectly balanced, eg equal difficulty or equal support for all builds or choices. It's not realistic, it's not feasible, and it's not fun in the long run. But I think we both agree that there's a certain point where the difficulty must be regulated however unrealistic (probably the best example is pickpocketing in games-- too hard and it's no fun and not profitable unless the player save/reloads; too easy and it sets itself up for abuse). Apparently, Arcanum crossed the line for some people.

Now, I'm still having that delusion that I'm making a game, and in my game, for example, being a knight (profession, not a class) who serves a noble house is much much easier then being a merc who is on his own.

But the merc probably has his own trump cards though, right? So I would say that if the trump cards are fairly good that there is balance here. More importantly, is it FUN(tm) to play as a merc? I think the imbalance problem in Arcanum was a side issue. If it's simply fun to play a certain class or profession, people will play it regardless of the difficulty or "imbalance." The problem in Arcanum wasn't really just that the combat was imbalanced, the combat was just not fun, period. I think we all agree that the standard Ogre build in Arcanum is at a significant disadvantage for dialogues, but some people (like me) played ogres exactly for the dialogues. They were hilarious.

 

[Lumpy]

In what way are some character classes harder than others? Hopefully, not in the Fallout sense that a diplomatic character would have much less stuff to do, would have to constantly run away from encounters, and would always have to worry about going in a wrong place. Yes, I know that's not the case in AoD, but hopefully, there won't be anything similar to that.
Here's the character creation part of Per's walkthrough for Fallout. http://user.tninet.se/~jyg699a/fallout.html#char
Most of the skills, traits and perks are useless. What is the point of putting them in then? If some skills are not as useful as others, merge them with similar skills, or make them increase faster.
In Fallout, for example, Science and Repair could and should have been merged. Sure, if you're a good informatician, you are not necessarily an expert well fixer, but you are not a great chemist and biologist either. They are similar, though, and merging them would have been ok.

Besides, balance simply can't be an issue in an RPG, between character archetypes at least. How do you balance a warrior, a diplomat, a thief and a loremaster? You can, and should, balance two warrior types, but balancing a diplomat and a thief is impossible. As Slylandro said, what matters is that all character types should be fun. And all skills should be useful, not only silly role-playing tools, like ("My character is a scout, so he has First Aid and Outdoorsman tagged, even though they are useless").