Define Balance

Phantax · September 2014

DEFINE BALANCE

bal·ance noun \ˈba-lən(t)s\

: the state of having your weight spread equally so that you do not fall

: the ability to move or to remain in a position without losing control or falling

: a state in which different things occur in equal or proper amounts or have an equal or proper amount of importance

Full Definition of BALANCE

: an instrument for weighing: as

: a beam that is supported freely in the center and has two pans of equal weight suspended from its ends

: a device that uses the elasticity of a spiral spring for measuring weight or force

: a means of judging or deciding

: a counterbalancing weight, force, or influence

: an oscillating wheel operating with a hairspring to regulate the movement of a timepiece

: stability produced by even distribution of weight on each side of the vertical axis

: equipoise between contrasting, opposing, or interacting elements

: equality between the totals of the two sides of an account

: an aesthetically pleasing integration of elements

b : the juxtaposition in writing of syntactically parallel constructions containing similar or contrasting ideas

: physical equilibrium

: the ability to retain one's balance

: weight or force of one side in excess of another

: something left over : remainder

: an amount in excess especially on the credit side of an account

: mental and emotional steadiness

— bal·anced adjective

— in the balance or in balance

: with the fate or outcome about to be determined <our future hangs in the balance as we await his decision>

— on balance
: with all things considered <the meeting went well on balance>

IF however, you're referring to balance in terms of a video game... forget it... it will never happen....lol

Super_Sonico · September 2014

Martinus72 wrote: »

Balance is a Holy Grail of every MMO but not one has achieved that in history yet...

So wrong. SWG did before the combat nerf to accommodate OP jedi. There weren't supposed to be jedi because of the GCW. Once they went down that path it all went to hell. But before they did, it was glorious.

ItsGlaive · September 2014

JoffyToffy69 wrote: »

Xabien wrote: »

Kos wrote: »

Many players debate balance issues, but how exactly should the balance be defined in the game such as ESO? For example is it balanced when heavy armor paired with 2 handed weapon deals as much damage as light armor and staff? How about light armor and 2 handed weapon? Then we add class abilities to the mix, and then the racials... I wonder if anyone could make it work, I know I could not. Even if I take two identical builds/race/class combos playing perfectly is it not the player who makes the first move the one to win?

Balance is having a number of options, all equally viable that can compete in all of the content, thus eliminating the need for hoards of skirts and sticks.

So I can run nude with a dagger and be viable with your logic? After all, I don't want to wear a skirt or use a stick.

I said a number of options, I didn't say one of them was your birthday suit so please don't put words in my mouth.

jelliedsoup · September 2014

Of course perfect balance will never be achieved. However having weapon damage being somewhat comparable to class skills would be a great start to 'balance' and diversity of builds.

Tootall2186 · September 2014

Balance = every dev plays a sorc. So they only get "nerfs". People complain and *** until they finally reroll a sorc and join the bs. Everyone is now a sorc spamming BE so no one has anything left to complain about... Forums are peaceful now that the sorc take over is in effect. Balance complete.

kieso · September 2014

when there's at least more than one meta for each class besides stick and skirt or eat dirt.

Kos · September 2014

Draxuul wrote: »

Now i`m sure everyone can agree with the fact that this is a perfectly balanced game right ??

It's great that you bring this up, because before even writing this post I looked up chess white first move advantage and guess what, statistically players playing white pieces win more often and whether we agree to it or not claims are that this is due to the first move advantage that white pieces have.

PBpsy · September 2014

For the majority of ESO players balance is:
"I am invinsible in big spikey hevu armor and I and killz stuff faster then enbudy since me orc."
"I is rouge and i duel wild and I allways gank u without you seing me evur never NightBlude. Blude Dude!!!!"
"Nurf Magicka"

Akula · September 2014

Balance is relative in mmos. Balance is when you are kicking some serious booty and they are not. When they are doing it to you, there is no balance. Thats why its never achieved and always in constant flux.

lathbury · September 2014

For pve class balance they need to work out which classes are the best at certain roles. Then ensure there is at most about a 10% difference between the best of that role and the worst. For eg and I'm not saying these roles and classes are fixed it's an example of my thinking on pve balance.
1. DK best tank. 2nd melee dps. 3rd range dps. 4th at healing
2. Templar 1st healer. 2nd tank. 3rd melee dps. 4th range dps
3. Nb 1st melee dps . 2nd range dps. 3rd healer. 4th tank.
4. Sorc 1st ranged dps. 2nd healer.3rd tank. 4th melee dps.
when they can do this with min maxed builds then they can balance any remaining armour and weapon issues for eg if all ranged dps are using resto and no class use bow to achieve it then clearly bow needs looking at. If melee fighters all started using dw and not 2h then they can balance that.
Armours should be treated the same for eg some tanks should suit heavy some medium some light. The same with dps and healing.
So to achieve these numbers that are only at most 10% different from the upper limit different classes may need to use total different weapons and armours because of the synergies.
Also the bottom class in a role should still be a viable choice because 10% not a lot and with other benefits they bring like off healing ability to off tank or usefull ultimates /raid buffs.
Do this and the game is balanced achieving this however and simultaneously not wrecking pvp is an epic undertaking.

Circuitous · September 2014

Coming from fighting games, balance in a multiplayer environment basically boils down to this.

A given [character/considerate build]'s matchups are not consistently extremely poor or extremely favorable.

If one class/build can dominate any other class/build, the game isn't balanced. If one class/build can't even make a dent in any other class/build, the game isn't balanced.

If one class/build dominates one or a few matchups, but is also dominated in other matchups, we can call that balance.

If a given class/build does well in some matchups, poorly in others, but isn't in the extreme one way or the other, that's closer to true balance.

If all classes/builds perform adequately against all other classes/builds, the game is truly balanced, and also extremely boring.

(For the record, by these criteria, ESO is not balanced. In case you were wondering.)

JoffyToffy69 · September 2014

I'm pretty sure this thread discovered that balance is impossible.
There is an analogy as chess as an example, which is pretty much spot on.

Forcing someone who puts the most effort into getting the most out of their build to be equal to someone who puts zero input it to their build is just not right.

With this whole logic that regardless of what build used, they should all be able to compete is just not right.
A healer obviously won't be able to defeat a dps, it's simply not their role. They are there to support. Same with tanks, they're not designed for group heals, but for taking damage, and so forth.

Saying "all build regardless of choices made, should all be somewhat viable" is ridiculous!

If I want to run around in my birthday suit with a dagger, I should not expect to be able to take on someone who is better equipped.

All the filthy casuals claim 'unbalanced' simply because they can't handle defeat, or they don't understand their roles. They don't understand their strengths and weaknesses.

You can't expect to win everytime.
If you're loosing, YOU are doing something wrong, not the enemy. Learn and adapt! Find their weakness and use it to your advantage.

There is also so many builds in this game, their is not one set way to play
(And don't say stick and skirt, that's just pathetic casual cries)

Ever shield bash a sorc? They hate that!
Silencing is super effective too.

So instead of crying for devs to change the game for you, change yourself for the game.

And if you say "I should be able to play how I want to play, and still win",
Just remember, with that line of thought, I should be able to kill you with no armor and only a dagger, since that's how '*I want to play'

*Not representative of actual ideal gameplay

ps. sorry for rant, but every other person with a keyboard seems to do the same thing

Tapio75 · September 2014

I think that balance for many is same as "I cant do as much damage as the next guy"

Balance for me would be high damage-low survivability
medium damage -medium survivablity
heavy survivability-Low damage

Thats balance for me, in case of abilities and classes, i think there is absolutely no need for balance. Balance tends to bring stale gameplay where everything feels same with different visuals while true fun comes when every build works very differently from another.

Tapio75 · September 2014

Martinus72 wrote: »

Balance is a Holy Grail of every MMO but not one has achieved that in history yet...

Nor they should, let min maxers have their uber powerful one build out of all and let those who want diversity play in total unbalance. Fun comes from diversity, balance kills diversity.

Circuitous · September 2014

Tapio75 wrote: »

Fun comes from diversity, balance kills diversity.

This cannot be overstated.

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO · September 2014

JoffyToffy69 wrote: »

And if you say "I should be able to play how I want to play, and still win",
Just remember, with that line of thought, I should be able to kill you with no armor and only a dagger, since that's how '*I want to play'

If there were 5 passives and an ultimate for "naked" then yes, I'd expect you to be able to.

The chess analogy is rubbish. If you played chess with four players and they all had pawns and a bunch of completely different unique pieces then it would make sense.

Seriously, if the game is just going to boil down to 4 basic stereotype builds why bother putting "The Elder Scrolls" in the title?

akray21 · September 2014

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO wrote: »

JoffyToffy69 wrote: »

And if you say "I should be able to play how I want to play, and still win",
Just remember, with that line of thought, I should be able to kill you with no armor and only a dagger, since that's how '*I want to play'

If there were 5 passives and an ultimate for "naked" then yes, I'd expect you to be able to.

The chess analogy is rubbish. If you played chess with four players and they all had pawns and a bunch of completely different unique pieces then it would make sense.

Seriously, if the game is just going to boil down to 4 basic stereotype builds why bother putting "The Elder Scrolls" in the title?

It now boils down to 2 main builds... DK w/ massive armor and spell resist that can take on 5 enemies in PvP. And a sorc with a broom and BE.

JoffyToffy69 · September 2014

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO wrote: »

The chess analogy is rubbish. If you played chess with four players and they all had pawns and a bunch of completely different unique pieces then it would make sense.

Seriously, if the game is just going to boil down to 4 basic stereotype builds why bother putting "The Elder Scrolls" in the title?

WTF!? chess is not four players, nor are the pieces random.
I think the analogy completely flew of your simple mind.

The analogy, in very basic speak, is that initially everyone has the same options, and it is up to you to make decisive and informed choices in which path you wish to take.

The analogy further more, goes on to explain, that if played tactical, a pawn can defeat a queen. So in laments terms, if you are smart, and tactical, you can take down your opponent, regardless of their abilities.

Tapio75 · September 2014

You can also choose to ignore the best possible build and just play some character you made. Every combination of class and abilities is viable as long as you ignore the futile race for perfection.

akray21 · September 2014

Tapio75 wrote: »

You can also choose to ignore the best possible build and just play some character you made. Every combination of class and abilities is viable as long as you ignore the futile race for perfection.

This is fine in non-competitive PvE, but does not work in competitive PvE or PvP.

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO · September 2014

JoffyToffy69 wrote: »

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO wrote: »

The chess analogy is rubbish. If you played chess with four players and they all had pawns and a bunch of completely different unique pieces then it would make sense.

Seriously, if the game is just going to boil down to 4 basic stereotype builds why bother putting "The Elder Scrolls" in the title?

WTF!? chess is not four players, nor are the pieces random.
I think the analogy completely flew of your simple mind.

The analogy, in very basic speak, is that initially everyone has the same options, and it is up to you to make decisive and informed choices in which path you wish to take.

The analogy further more, goes on to explain, that if played tactical, a pawn can defeat a queen. So in laments terms, if you are smart, and tactical, you can take down your opponent, regardless of their abilities.

You should probably re-read that. I said that the analogy would be accurate if chess were played with 4 players.

I could be mistaken though, my simple mind gets confused.

JoffyToffy69 · September 2014

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO wrote: »

You should probably re-read that. I said that the analogy would be accurate if chess were played with 4 players.

I could be mistaken though, my simple mind gets confused.

Chess is not four players though.... only two...
amount of players is irrelevant.
It is not the main point, nor the flaw, of the chess analogy.
I just wasn't sure if you correctly understood the main points of the analogy.

-We all start of with equal options and opportunities, and from then on it is up to YOU on how well you play.

-And if you are smart and tactical, you can defeat opponents regardless of their abilities.

Sorry for calling you simple, but I can't use swear words in the forums haha.
And it wasn't personal either

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO · September 2014

JoffyToffy69 wrote: »

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO wrote: »

You should probably re-read that. I said that the analogy would be accurate if chess were played with 4 players.

I could be mistaken though, my simple mind gets confused.

Chess is not four players though.... only two...
amount of players is irrelevant.
It is not the main point, nor the flaw, of the chess analogy.
I just wasn't sure if you correctly understood the main points of the analogy.

-We all start of with equal options and opportunities, and from then on it is up to YOU on how well you play.

-And if you are smart and tactical, you can defeat opponents regardless of their abilities.

Sorry for calling you simple, but I can't use swear words in the forums haha.
And it wasn't personal either

Ok.

There are four classes in ESO.
They all have vastly different abilities.
The classes are not equal, they are unbalanced.

In chess both players have exactly the same pieces, so the only difference is the strategy the player chooses. As far as the mechanics go, they are equal and no player starts with an advantage of mechanics.

Yes, you can use strategy and out-maneuver your opponent in ESO as you can in chess but that is where the similarity ends.

It's a bad analogy, a simplistic view which was stated by someone who believes that the game is balanced and that the only thing separating two players is their own strategy.

By all means, swear away but I'd rather hear what makes you agree with the analogy.

Decimus_Rex · September 2014

Eso is quite frankly the biggest mess I have ever seen when it comes to PvP and balance

2-3 skill spamfest zerging that wipes whole areas clean of players with very little chance of picking off one or two targets

Stun lock,stealth,knock down or root deaths that take 2 seconds or less (Enjoy the trot back) More fights than I can count of not getting off a single shot in defense

Stick and skirt, Resto/Destro over power that never gets addressed for balance (Eviscerating Sorcerers Online)

Vampire Bat swarm *** proof mass solo killing

There are many many more issues of balance with this game but I have a headache now and need to go lay down ( Doctor a Thorazine drip please)

JoffyToffy69 · September 2014

Well you can't have balance then.
It's either everyone is the same, or everyone can be different.

if there is a difference, then it's not balanced.

So it does truly boil down to strategy using your chosen abilities.

Learn to play and know your strengths and weaknesses.
If you choose to suck, then you can't demand everyone else should too.

Gigglesnort · September 2014

I am thinking when life becomes balance, MMO's will become balance, so when one nation invades another, the nation that has the most advance technology and protective armor will have no advantage of the commoner wearing everyday clothes and carrying sticks for weapons. In other words, never.

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO · September 2014

JoffyToffy69 wrote: »

Well you can't have balance then.
It's either everyone is the same, or everyone can be different.

if there is a difference, then it's not balanced.

So it does truly boil down to strategy using your chosen abilities.

Learn to play and know your strengths and weaknesses.
If you choose to suck, then you can't demand everyone else should too.

That's quite true, you can't ever completely balance an mmo.

But you can get to the point where the majority of the player base enjoy variety in their builds and don't feel like they are at a disadvantage just because they picked the wrong 5 skills out of the couple of hundred available.

This relative balance comes with gradual tweaking which traditionally is based on player feedback and rigorous testing.

When one set of strengths don't make the others largely redundant, you have a relative balance. In the mean time people will pick the better classes and copy their builds off the internet and tell everyone else they suck.

JoffyToffy69 · September 2014

Zergs that spam are zergs that can be beaten. And I have beaten alot with the numbers against us.
I'm in a rather high end pvp guild, which is rather exclusive. We might run at most a 12 man group. Yet we are damn well organised.
We follow the leaders instructions, and stick together. We work as a team. Healers heal, and dps does their thing.
We know our strengths and weaknesses, and we adjust our gameplay accordingly. We know our positions and our roles.
By doing this, we can take down groups of over 50+

Too many people think they are the heroes of their game, and therefore can take on anything. This is very narrow minded. Everyone needs to know they are not heroes, just another player, and their advancement and failure is a reflection of their gameplay and mindset.

JoffyToffy69 · September 2014

Also FOTM builds will always come and go.
Vamps had a huge temp pop increase, then everyone started doing flame damage to counter.
Sorcs spammed spells, as a result most people have armour traits to counter.

There will forever be constant changes.
But it is up to the player to learn and adapt.

There is no point in doing the same thing repetitively and expect a different outcome. And since you're not getting the desired outcome, it suddenly becomes someone else's fault

Kos · September 2014

jamie.goddenrwb17_ESO wrote: »

If there were 5 passives and an ultimate for "naked" then yes, I'd expect you to be able to.

I wonder what would that ultimate be?