Balance with Rock<Paper<Scissors in theory

[Sylar]

(Yes I have nothing better to think about but this, I'd love to hear some feedbacks though)

So if I have the idea right, the devs are not aiming for a realism balance but strictly profession based balance. If that is true then I'm going to assume that the basic classes are balanced like in a game of rock paper and scissors:

RANGED > 2H > SHIELDED > RANGED

I know we have many weapons that makes everything seems complex and unorganized but lets expand on the more complicated professions after the basics are balanced first. One step at a time.

So the logic behind RPS is that one is bigger than the other or in this case one profession can take down another easily (but not always) since the world is a complex 3d sandbox sim and anything can happen.

First: Ranged Units should be able to take down the 2H units quite easily
So the question this part raises can be:
1)Can Ranged units do that right now in the current cRPG? If not what is the problem?

Second:2H unit should be able to take down Shielded units or have an advantage over them.
question for this part can be:
2)What sort of advantage a 2H should/would have over Shielders?

Third: Shielders should have an obvious advantage over Ranged units and should be able to kill them easily.
question for this part can be:
3)What happens when you approach a ranger and he runs?

1) I've seen lots of complains about missile speed and many other problems with the archers, just nothing or not much from the crossbow or throwers. And personally I've spent about an equal amount of time on every profession and I must say that the archer class is the most difficult to play especially when you're just starting out. People without any shield can easily dodge your shots because the reticule takes some time to tighten up and when it does, it isn't very accurate either. As for the missile speed, I'm fine with it. So generally when I face just about any opponent most of the time they can get to me and kill my starter(lvl 10-20) archer with no problem. But only at higher levels is when you truly feel like you're playing an archer. But I think that ranged units should be able to take down anyone without a shield easily, if not already.

2)As for people wielding 2H, an obvious advantage to give is to have them swing for much more damage and more speed so they are much more powerful when facing Shielders. And based on what I've seen in game there are only a couple holding a 2H that could completely over spam their way to kill a Shielder. The 2H (polearms included) should swing fast and do decent damage but factors like weight and length should play a role in determining the speed of the weapon.

3)With the issue of people running away, the servers could always setup rules. Or the devs could script it so that archers must carry a melee weapon with them at all time and when their team is out of melee fighters, they cannot use ranged weapons and must come face to face with the enemy. And as for the current shielder that I play, I feel that it may be a little OP over the ranged and 2H classes (even though I'm not that good at it).

But what I think the rule to having a balanced gameplay (especially with many different professions you can go with) is that one profession should have an obvious advantage over another that you can truly feel it during gameplay. The logic of balanced stats should not matter as much as the practical gameplay.

[Kafein]

There's no rock-paper-scissors in cRPG.

ranged kill unshielded inf
ranged run from shielders
ranged headshot horses


Yes you found it, the only counter to range is... range 

[Sylar]

There's no rock-paper-scissors in cRPG.

ranged kill unshielded inf
ranged run from shielders
ranged headshot horses


Yes you found it, the only counter to range is... range 

yeah but try to scale it down a bit to 1vs1. What I'm trying to get to is when you're a ranger and you face a unshielded unit can you take him down easy enough to say that you do in fact have that advantage over him? And from what I've experienced is that it's pretty dam difficult to land a shot on anything at all unless your stats are all buffed up or if the enemy only walks in a straight line.

And as for ranged running from shielders during a 1v1, we can probably fix most part if ranged are forced to use a melee weapon and have their movement speed matched up to their opponents when an enemy is lets say 2 meters. But if the ranged just keeps running and shooting at the shield, then eventually they would have used up their shots and be forced to fight melee. This of course needs to be scripted and could be very nasty for the devs, so there might be other ways that work too.

Ranged doing headshots to horses isn't that easy in the current version. Cavs only get shot down if they were riding straight and a predictable pattern. But we know most of the time Cavs don't do that. In a 1vs1 situation Cavs are most likely to defeat the ranged.

and then of course Ranged = Ranged not > or < than itself.

[Siiem]

So in the end this is another archer lobby thread that want archery to be like it was in native.

[Blondin]

You forgot cav, meaning there is no rock/paper/scissor, or you should add a new one, a well for example.

[Tears of Destiny]

You lost me at all of the "should be able to kill X easily."

Some so-called classes will have a noticable advantage over others in some situations, but nothing should ever be an easy kill.

[Sammael]

You lost me at all of the "should be able to kill X easily."

Some so-called classes will have a noticable advantage over others in some situations, but nothing should ever be an easy kill.

This. Some play styles should have a natural advantage over others (cav fighting a 1h for example) but not to the point where it negates personal skill, which should almost always be the deciding factor in the outcome of a fight. The only reason you should be "able to kill X easily" is because your skill level is greater than your opponent's.

[PhantomZero]

You forgot cav, meaning there is no rock/paper/scissor, or you should add a new one, a well for example.

If 1H is paper, 2H is rock, Polearms are Scissors, then Cav is the sucker punch to the throat, and ranged is pushing the other guy down a flight of stairs.

[Phew]

The better question is how does your weapon choice give you an advantage or disadvantage relative to your skill level?

i.e. I use a Great Long Bardiche, and I can reliably kill cavalry that are more skilled than me, but even shielders with minimal skill usually own me (I land one hit on the shield, then they are in my face hacking me to death).

Presumably, any shielder with the bare minimum of motor skills should be able to kill an archer of any skill level, and in fact they will have an advantage over most 2Hers/pole users. And there isn't another class that can reliably kill a shielder of equal or greater skill...Until their shield breaks, in which case most shielders are sitting ducks. Is this sufficient to say that shielders are balanced? I don't know.

Archers are fine right now, IMHO. Potentially deadly, but manageable. At least in siege, the team with the most archers usually loses.

[Baggy]

The better question is how does your weapon choice give you an advantage or disadvantage relative to your skill level?

i.e. I use a Great Long Bardiche, and I can reliably kill cavalry that are more skilled than me, but even shielders with minimal skill usually own me (I land one hit on the shield, then they are in my face hacking me to death).

Presumably, any shielder with the bare minimum of motor skills should be able to kill an archer of any skill level, and in fact they will have an advantage over most 2Hers/pole users. And there isn't another class that can reliably kill a shielder of equal or greater skill...Until their shield breaks, in which case most shielders are sitting ducks. Is this sufficient to say that shielders are balanced? I don't know.

Archers are fine right now, IMHO. Potentially deadly, but manageable. At least in siege, the team with the most archers usually loses.

Polearms counter shielders.So do cav.

[BlackMilk]

The better question is how does your weapon choice give you an advantage or disadvantage relative to your skill level?

i.e. I use a Great Long Bardiche, and I can reliably kill cavalry that are more skilled than me, but even shielders with minimal skill usually own me (I land one hit on the shield, then they are in my face hacking me to death).

Presumably, any shielder with the bare minimum of motor skills should be able to kill an archer of any skill level, and in fact they will have an advantage over most 2Hers/pole users. And there isn't another class that can reliably kill a shielder of equal or greater skill...Until their shield breaks, in which case most shielders are sitting ducks. Is this sufficient to say that shielders are balanced? I don't know.

Thats so true

[Casimir]

The better question is how does your weapon choice give you an advantage or disadvantage relative to your skill level?

i.e. I use a Great Long Bardiche, and I can reliably kill cavalry that are more skilled than me, but even shielders with minimal skill usually own me (I land one hit on the shield, then they are in my face hacking me to death).

Presumably, any shielder with the bare minimum of motor skills should be able to kill an archer of any skill level, and in fact they will have an advantage over most 2Hers/pole users. And there isn't another class that can reliably kill a shielder of equal or greater skill...Until their shield breaks, in which case most shielders are sitting ducks. Is this sufficient to say that shielders are balanced? I don't know.

Archers are fine right now, IMHO. Potentially deadly, but manageable. At least in siege, the team with the most archers usually loses.

Crushthrough maulers are pretty good at killing most shielders, if you know how to foot work

[Thucydides]

I just pick up a GLA and laugh at all the pathetic attempts to kill me.

Then range comes along and takes me out in 2 shots, NERF RANGE

[Diomedes]

cRPG does not have a Rock/Paper/Scissors balance but build-based class combat.  Each class, though fairly distinct [now], has enough flexibility that on the whole it can adapt to fight almost any particular enemy class.  An accuracy>power archer build, for example, can headshot and footshot many shielders.  These archers, however, often have too few PD to reliably take down armoured 2h.  A power-based archer, though, can reliably take down armoured enemy at medium range but can be easily overtaken by charging shielders with more athletics. 

In my case, as a light shielder, I can enter more fights than most other classes and generally have more survivability (e.g. I can run away quickly or just block most attacks with my shield).  I'm vulnerable, though, to sustained combat or stuns which can leave me open for a 2nd hit finishing strike to my light armour.


cRPG is complex 

[Dunecat]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login