MMORPG balancing issues
Blizzard announced diablo III recently. This is big news to pretty much any RPG gamer: Diablo and Diablo 2 took hack and slash RPGs to a new level. I don’t expect any different from Diablo III… In fact all Blizzard games tend to be cream-of-the-crop when they are released. Anyways, one thing that caught my eye in the Diablo III gameplay trailer was the two classes and how they chose to work on those two classes first. Are the other classes not developed? Do blizzard developers form all the classes simultaneously? Is it a matter of animations and art that hold back releasing info? Are the other classes already balanced and play-tested? The answers to those questions would, in my opinion, set a precedent for Accepted Best Practices (ABP) in developing and balancing RPGs everywhere. Sure, they might have only released two classes because those two classes are the most polished. Regardless, it brought up a dynamic system that I wanted to think about: Theorhetical basis of balance vs Practical hands on realities.
Where does the line get drawn between theoretical balance and the reality of gameplay?
Obviously any game needs theoretical groundings. A common technique for RPGs is to cap player levels. We opt for matching formulas a little more precisely (this is the topic of a whole ‘nother post). Certainly there are limitations to this approach: when you have so many variables: (equipment, spells/techs, stats, the formulas) its borderline impossible to say you’ve covered every perspective. The only way to do so is to simplify (aka reduce options) for available character builds and no one wants that! One example is Command and Conquer vs Warcraft 3. Command and Conquer had near perfect theoretical balance, but at the cost of having all countries have the same basic units. Warcraft 3 had superior variance, but at what cost? I think the cost was tons of practical, hands-on testing.
The practical side is matching up different builds against each other, looking for unintended inequalities and blatant mistakes in the theoretical stage. When play-testing you are acknowledging the impossibility of the theoretical perfect balance. I feel like 4.1.11 was an excellent run at this kind of testing. 5.0 is the result of 4.1.11, and 5.0.1 will be the result of what we learn in 5.0. Now, commercial game studios have masses of game testers: SURELY those testers are consulted for game balance, right? Does anyone have a job as a tester in the gaming industry? How does it work?
I’m very curious to learn how the pros at blizzard find equilibrium in their games despite all the variables.
I’m sure theoretical and practical considerations roll into it.
My 2 cents on the intractable problem.
July 17, 2008 at 10:50 am
A truly insightful read…I’m inspired to open up my copy of Warcraft III and Age of Empires this evening. I was always concerned with balancing the Quest economy and making it “closed”. However this was tough with the drops, rares, mining and figuring out a way to account for the sudden influx of people and resources. I think we’ve gotten better with our sinks such as clan tax, item depreciation, siphoning, and death penalties.
Have you googled for any rpg game balancing articles
*goes to check out google and gamedev.net*
July 17, 2008 at 10:49 pm
y’know, some interesting perspectives are out there on gamedev.net… nothing principled and a heavy focus on RP, less on hack-and-slash.
Never googled it… *goes*
July 18, 2008 at 2:11 pm
in response to balancing skills, etc. you might want to have a look at this page:
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/design/features/balance/
has some things that are always good to keep in mind
July 20, 2008 at 7:43 pm
An interesting read, although you’d have to take some of those ideas a lot further to get any real revelation. If you take the example of blizzard, you can easilly see glaring holes in their testing processes that result in problems that they themselves admit were never anticipated and break what they expect players to be capable of.
In the end i’m reminded of a thread on an old forum (sorry, can’t dig it up just this minute), which stated quite eloquently that no amount of internal or beta testing will ever, ever compare to the sheer volume of man-hours being thrown at a live product by players every day. As a result, any group well disposed to represent a live player-base is going to be at least as knowledgable about your game as internal beta testers and hell, even developers. To ignore that kind of feedback and say ‘its already been tested internally’, or worse, ‘working as intended’ is an easy cop-out (this is what we see blizzard doing untill problems become so great that they are borderline game-breaking). Comparing to games like WIII and age of empires to MMOs isn’t easy because the nature of the competition is rather different (indirect, often non-confrontational). Plus, Age of Empires and c&c wern’t perfectly balanced by quite a way.
If I don’t cull this now I’ll end up writting an article here. So I’ll call it at this – quest needs a lot of refining before you can compare it in terms of ‘balance’ to other games. That isn’t to say its not a good game, its just lacking certain defining points.
July 20, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Jonny:
Good points. These ideas are very much in the musing stage and you are right to notice that.
Completely agree with the idea that internal testing isn’t quite the gamut that live players are. I’m not so sure I agree that MORPGs are so different from RTSs. Many core balancing ideas carry over. To qualify that I must confess I am partial to a good RTS.
What defining points do you feel Quest is missing? I bet my list is longer than yours!
August 10, 2008 at 5:00 pm
[...] – bookmarked by 1 members originally found by damianvila on 2008-07-26 MMORPG balancing issues http://questrpg.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/mmorpg-balancing-issues/ – bookmarked by 3 members [...]
August 16, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Dlor:
I’ll ellaborate on my comment of RTS versus MMORPG – That is the nature of the competition. In an RTS 2+ players are directly fighting one another. In an MMO players are COMPETING but not actually fighting with one another. It may be competing for best build or most gold or highest level or rarest items, but they’re still competing without directly fighting one-another. Thats the defining difference, because it makes balance harder to define from a user’s end. If someone has more EXP than me is it because he’s more skilled or is his character better statted/balanced? I can’t really know. On an RTS you can SEE your oponents strategy, and you can SEE what units he’s using and where his resources come from and you KNOW if you got out-played or if the game was simply balanced in his favour. For the record: I’m a HUGE RTS fan.
Re: Defining points. Obviously, this will be different from player to player. For me a defining point in quest is probably the lack of real ‘Classes’. Players choose a stat build and its only really tradition that makes most players conform to traditional warrior/mage setups. I like the freedom of choice that brings and I respect the extra preassure it puts on you guys having to balance such a wider veriety of potential builds. The new skill system is nice but I feel it needs some tweaks. Thats a subject for the official board once all the new stuff settles down and I’ll be posting my thoughts on it as soon as bigger issues are addressed. I feel it can potentially be a really nice defining point once it comes into its own.
So what’s missing? Thats a rediculous question, the game is under development. Whatever you want to put in it is what’s missing. For me, the magic system needs finishing and the graphics could use a tweak (black borders, seriously.) If I listed everything I felt the game missed I might as well go make my own game, and I’m not qualified for that.