What are examples of games with balanced Pvp?

Tan9oSuccka

Taunky wrote: »

Saucy_Jack wrote: »

How about this - ESO trying a Fortnite kind of thing?

Get out.

This. Ugh.

randomkeyhits

I'd say one that gets close is Warframe

They had terrible PvP originally, with additional frames it got sillier and sillier so they ended up taking a step back and making some hard decisions.

For about four or five months there was no PvP at all and at the end they had disassociated PvE and PvP completely.

They got a core number of frames and mods and weapons balanced and the rest you simply couldn't use in PvP at all. Where necessary they reworked a frames powers for PvP and reintroduced frames to PvP one by one when they were satisfied they were reasonably balanced. Same with weapons and even today there are weapons and frames which are not allowed in PvP, its still an ongoing process several years down the line. Same with mods, they are marked as PvE or PvP or both, they do take care to at least try and get it right.

I don't do much PvP there because its high energy, hi speed, twitch response stuff. Its fun for sure but not really my scene.

Sometimes something has enough of an edge and becomes the meta and you'll see it all over but pretty much anything can be competitive especially if you are teaming and synergise. Heck of a lot of options once you go down that route.

Acrolas

You're going to find better balance in tabletop games because all the variables are physically limited. You only get a certain number of cards or a set amount of dice and there's usually a rulebook available for any disagreements.

Digital games have to simulate variables. And even on the best days those variables will be artificial and somewhat unpredictable. So that's been my approach to digital gaming. Shrug off any loss because we're all just swimming in a sea of random numbers. Shrug off any win because it's the same thing; could have just as easily been a loss.

Tandor

Agenericname wrote: »

Chess

Pawns would argue that the Queen needs nerfing.

Vandril

You're overwhelmingly going to receive the single answer of: "There aren't any." And the reason for that isn't because no game has good balance. Over time, players have gained a very skewed notion of balance that doesn't coincide with their simultaneous desire for uniqueness in design mechanics like classes and builds (which I'll be referring to as just "builds" for the rest of the post).

For example, you'll find that most vocal players that argue as opponents of build "homogenization" are the very same players who strictly adhere to "the meta". The meta exists specifically to narrow down choices in builds into their most potent form, effectively resulting in the homogenization of them. It's a glaring contradiction between two opposing desires, but most players likely don't realize that.

This following of the meta results in a focus on build efficacy based on the numbers the most mathematically powerful builds can pull. Due to this hyper-focus on efficacy and "the numbers" over the past decade and some years of gaming, players have become obsessed with balancing them without making them exactly the same.

Frankly, the level of perfect balance players want is impossible to achieve without perfect homogenization. You will never find this balance in a game with build choices. You'll only ever find this sort of balance in games where all players are given the exact same tools to handle the exact same circumstances, such as Pong.

You can have balance or choice; choose one.

Ragnarock41

On the topic I would like to say that perfect balance in a PvP game means both sides are %100 equal on everything, and at that point it stops being a game, its only competition, a duel to determine who is better.

But games are meant to be fun for a lot of people(cause devs need to make money, duh) and well, if you play a perfectly balanced game you'll end up losing to better players every time, which means your game will have a very small core elite audience but nobody else will be able to enjoy it. This is why competitive games are often built on ''perfect imbalance'' rather than ''perfect balance''.

For example, Counter Strike is an asymmetrical shooter that gives both teams different objectives and different arsenals to arm themselves, not only that there are different weapon types that require different skill levels to use effectively, but there is also the economical factor that balances the existance of overpowered weapons in that game or gives a purpose to use the weaker ones such as pistols or smgs. Kill rewards also vary from weapon to weapon adding another layer of strategic meaning to each weapon. And I didn't even mention the strategic importance of smokes, flashbangs and such.

So you know, sometimes its better for a game to be not balanced. If counter strike was yet another team deathmatch game I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be the legend it is today.

VaranisArano

Ayastigi wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ayastigi wrote: »

So in the community's eyes is it the access to gear or the gear itself which creates the imbalance?

In my eyes, neither.

On a gameplay level, its ZOS' design choice for the game. Again, its Rock, Paper, Scissors. Most builds have something they are very good at, and a crippling weakness. So you can choose to either specialize in the one thing you are very good at and accept your weakness in certain situations OR you can choose to build to be a jack of all trades, but master of none. See the monthly threads from ranged-only MagNBs complaining about DK wings.

Where that falls apart is where occasionally you get things that are just so good and they have practically no weaknesses (Sloads, Earthgore) and eventually, ZOS usually nerfs those things. Those are gear examples, but we've seen it with skills too (Destro staff ultimate, stam warden cliff racers), and builds (poor dead Blazeplars).


On a individual player level, the imbalance is primarily due to player skill. ESO is a game that highly rewards a player's skill with their gear and their build. For all that people like to throw out hypothetical between two players of equal skill or claim that low skill players are "carried" by their gear, I see that as very rare in actual PVP battles (with the exception of the above examples).

I've been the inexperienced player wearing the meta gear with the meta build...and I still sucked. The player who is more experienced at PVP and more experienced with their build and their gear will almost always win out over the player who is less experienced, regardless of who has the "better" or the more meta gear/build set-up.

I agree with all of this. So it seems like the quest for balance in a mmorpg is moot because rpg elements do not encourage balance. So if we are striving to remove broken mechanics or gear from the game how do we come to a consensus on what fits the criteria for broken. Also, if something is game-breaking in a pvp environment but not pve how do we remedy it without affecting it's effectiveness in pve?

Typically the criteria ZOS uses for PVE and PVP is whether a thing is overused, obviously better than everything else, causes obvious power creep, or gives too much benefit for too few drawbacks.

Now, there's lots of times that ZOS nerfs those things in both PVE and PVP. Thing is, its pretty obvious when something is overperforming in PVP. But Molag Kena doesnt have a forum account, so she doesnt show up here to complain about overperforming PVE gear, skills, and builds so PVEers are often caught by surprise when ZOS nerfs their favorite stuff. When ZOS wants to, they can change things for just PVP, as they did when they changed Viper to a DOT that did the same amount of damage. More often, they have a PVE reason to make those changes too (even if that reason is just "its the meta, lets shake things up!"

Ultimately, its the Devs who decide what is actually broken, in what contexts, anf how they best want to change things.

Agenericname

Tandor wrote: »

Agenericname wrote: »

Chess

Pawns would argue that the Queen needs nerfing.

Pawns need to L2P.

FrancisCrawford

There will never even be a criterion for "balanced" that will be fair in all the ways people want it to be.

Game theory is clean and accurate only for two-person zero-sum games, and even there balance questions arise. (Is chess balanced? Is Fischer Random chess balanced? What assumptions are being made about access to computers when you answer that? What should the rules be for world championship matches?)

Beyond that, it's generally impossible for all reasonable fairness criteria to be met at once.

burglar

Tandor wrote: »

Agenericname wrote: »

Chess

Pawns would argue that the Queen needs nerfing.

thedude33

Tandor wrote: »

Agenericname wrote: »

Chess

Pawns would argue that the Queen needs nerfing.

They would call for a nerf. I would suggest its a l2p issue and the pawns need to git gud

Edit: Someone beat me to the punch

JamilaRaj

Rikumaru wrote: »

Mario kart.

They are overdoing it a bit there, almost providing perverse incentive to be second or third and only go for the first place in the last lap.
Though that is still better than ESO, which, in Mario Kart's terms, practically grants speed bonus to leading kart for being leading kart.

KhajiitFelix

CSGO I guess.

Peekachu99

Chess

dem0n1k

Quake. In fact, most early first person shooters are balanced because there are no classes & all players start with the same weapon & armour.

Mr_Walker

Saucy_Jack wrote: »

My point is, since ESO launched, people have been bellyaching about the PVP, whether that's with the original Cyro map, or IC, or BGs. Every time I hear someone talk about PVP, it's NEVER to say "oh this great; this is fun"; ...

I do say that. On a good day. When I'm playing well, and not dying due to being rubbish or lag. On those other days, "m like "please delete this crap from the game".

max_only

Team Fortress 2. Ah nostalgia

ArchMikem

Planetside 2

When everyone's weapons do roughly the same damage, even new players can defeat seasoned vets whove unlocked all the flash and glamour.

Ragnarock41

ArchMikem wrote: »

Planetside 2

When everyone's weapons do roughly the same damage, even new players can defeat seasoned vets whove unlocked all the flash and glamour.

Planetside 2 has its own problems like class balance or faction locked weapons/vehicles. New players lack weapon-vehicle attachments, medkits,grenades, nanoweave armor,implants, c4-landmines etc... Its a massive farming to catch up. And I won't even begin with the class balance, heavy assault above everything else.

DisgracefulMind

Saucy_Jack wrote: »

Taunky wrote: »

Get out.

My point is, since ESO launched, people have been bellyaching about the PVP, whether that's with the original Cyro map, or IC, or BGs. Every time I hear someone talk about PVP, it's NEVER to say "oh this great; this is fun"; it's always complaining because of this or that or the other thing.

So if people are always complaining about it, then maybe ESO should try another type of PVP - one that a LOT of people say is a LOT of fun. I don't play Fortnite myself; I'm just saying that the numbers don't lie.

If I ran a restaurant and customers were constantly complaining about the food, at some point I would have to look in the mirror and admit that it's not the customers being whiny that's the problem, but the service/food I'm offering.

To be fair, Saucy, usually people are complaining about the performance and the lack of care the devs give to PvP, which are completely valid points.

People complain about builds they don't like and such, yes, but sometimes there is genuine truth to some complaints. That doesn't mean most people who do complain about PvP are complaining about these things. I actually find only people on the forums who complain to absurd extents - most people ingame I find just want better performance and for ZoS to actually show they care about PvP (which they don't show at all).

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO

iCaliban wrote: »

Lightspeedflashb14_ESO wrote: »

halo 1, 2, 3. mmos can never be balanced.

Halo 5 is an excellent pvp experience. Halo 4 was not I agree.

Sprint kills the game for me and don't get me started on charge or ground pound.

Ratzkifal

Agenericname wrote: »

Chess

@Agenericname Chess heavily favors white. Chess is like tic-tac-toe, a game that the starting player always wins or draws in as long as he/she doesn't make a mistake. If both players play flawlessly, white always wins/draws but never loses.

SosRuvaak

Minecraft

Darkhorse1975

Mojomonkeyman

Up to this day I consider Starcraft Broodwar the most balanced PvP game not relying on equivalent units/skills for each race. A role model for counter based balance and skill based gameplay.

I still dont fully understand whether those oldschool developers were simply that much better or just had more freedom in development due to the industry being not mainstream cash milking machine.

Probably a mix of both.

TempPlayer

I'm sure someone had already mentioned it and will be surprised if not.
Baseball, hockey, football, or any Olympic event.
You will notices that all of those will have player follow the same rule in their respective game with player pretty much using the same equipment. You will never see an archer going against a karate fighter, as fun as it may sounds, in Olympic. Which is kind of the ridiculous situation we are in right now.

Alucardo

ESO has a lot of potential to be balanced. It just so happens there's a few builds out there that trump all others. You could have 6k weapon damage and 12k penetration on a medium armor build. A decent player using a turtle build spamming heroic slash and reverb is still going to kill you. In my mind, this doesn't make a lot of sense.
Generally in MMOs tanks will have high survivability, but truly garbage damage. They haven't a hope of taking anything down alone, but it doesn't work this way in ESO. PvP tanks are capable of infinite sustain, good damage, and near immortality. Balanced?
There should always be a price to pay if you want to turtle, or if you want sustainable damage. You're not supposed to get it both ways.

To answer the question, I've only played 2 MMOs prior to ESO, and they were both more balanced simply because they follow the above rule. WoW being my most recent, and which I still go back to occasionally because god damn I miss that 25ms ping. Obviously they still have their flaws, but ultimately I never feel cheated because I was killed by a B.S build that shouldn't exist.

Raevyness

Rikumaru wrote: »

Mario kart.

Hahaha. I low key remember playing Mario Kart on the wii, no joke the hackers were REAL. Can't beat em, join em

ArchMikem

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Planetside 2

When everyone's weapons do roughly the same damage, even new players can defeat seasoned vets whove unlocked all the flash and glamour.

Planetside 2 has its own problems like class balance or faction locked weapons/vehicles. New players lack weapon-vehicle attachments, medkits,grenades, nanoweave armor,implants, c4-landmines etc... Its a massive farming to catch up. And I won't even begin with the class balance, heavy assault above everything else.

Class balance doesnt matter if youre an NC with a Shotgun.

But yeah some unlockables are pretty required for standard play such as c-4 bricks, AI mines, AT mines etc. But when it comes down to the nitty gritty PvP its still much closer in balance than ESO. Everyone does the same damage range and everyone has the same health range.

Digiman

Honestly though there are games out there that aren't that balanced but they are more balanced then this game.

WoW, SWTOR and DCUO are games I played... Freaking WoW is more balanced then this...

Each class literally has 15 abilities in total and there a 5 classes now.... your telling me they can't balance that?

The combat team is just sad, sadly. Wrobel should hang his head in shame for not getting this straight after so many years.