Basic game imbalances

[Tears of Destiny]

Honestly I found this to be one of the best presented threads I have read on this forum, and at a glance I like the thoughts it holds. I do need to read it once more, then I should post real feedback.

Just wanted to say splendid work.

[Tomas_of_Miles]

Actually making your own multiplayer mod isn't hard. What is hard is integrating a browser game and persistent stats and also new several layered dynamic objects.

[ToxicKilla]

Actually making your own multiplayer mod isn't hard. What is hard is integrating a browser game and persistent stats and also new several layered dynamic objects.

Pfft, I do that in my sleep, infact, that's how cRPG was made, but chadz stole it from me...

[Slamz]

So I think the main focus is an idea for changing how the cRPG economy works.

Current:
You get money.  You spend it buying stuff and paying repair costs.  You can equip whatever you want until you run out of repair money.

Suggested:
Same as above except there is a ceiling on how much gear you can equip at a time.  This ceiling is called "wealth".  For example, perhaps your ceiling is 40,000 gold.  That's how much stuff you can equip.  You cannot equip more than that regardless of how much money you have.  "Wealth" points can be converted to skill points and attributes and vice versa so that you are forced to choose: you can have high wealth (full plate, plated charger, top weapons, etc) or you can have high attributes or you can be somewhere in the middle.  You cannot have both high attributes and high wealth.

So, for example, you would be 18/18/18 -- 18 str, 18 agi, 18 wealth.  Middle of the road character, good all around, excels at nothing in particular but has no weaknesses.  Or you could be 28/18/8.  Higher str+agi than would normally be possible but you get it at the expense of wealth, so you can't wear overly good gear.  Or you could be 18/8/28.  Less agility but abnormally high wealth, perhaps for that plated charger build.


The idea is to increase diversity.


Eh.

I would personally label this as "awfully dramatic" at this stage of the mod.  You're talking about a complete upheaval over something I think is not a terrible problem.  It's not like any one "class" is rolling the server, dominating in all things.  There is an element of rock-paper-scissors in play that does work whenever the players don't stubbornly cling to their particular build.

For example, "archers are overpowered".  Suddenly there are more throwers and shielders.  Archers are not so overpowered anymore.  "Cavalry is overpowered".  Suddenly there are more pikes, archers and throwers.  Cavalry is not so overpowered anymore.  Etc.  It's really only a problem when people pigeonhole themselves in a narrow build, like a full STR two-hand build with absolutely no counter to archery or throwing.  They'd rather complain on the forums than adapt their crap build (or crap playstyle) to something more versatile.



One thing you suggested that did have merit, I think, is a freer ability to respec -- both stat points and heirlooms.  I don't see a downside to this.  Let people do a free, complete, 100% respec, including heirloom points, once every 7 days.  More often than that will cost 50% XP per respec as usual.

Most MMORPGs grant complete respecs whenever they do a major patch precisely so people can re-evaluate their character builds and don't find themselves stuck with something they now hate, due to the patch.  It's a good thing and it's something cRPG should allow for as well.  For example, the last patch kinda screwed my build by increasing my armor weight, which messed up my wpf-to-PT ratio for the armor I wear.  I need more wpf now but I'm level 30 and am not inclined to sacrifice half my XP.  I'll just suck it up until level 31 but I shouldn't have to.  People choosing to level past 31 are especially vulnerable to the whims of the devs.

I can't think of a good reason not to allow some free respecs.  Yes it will tend to make people flock to the "flavor of the month" that much faster but if balance is being done well, then there will never be one overly dominant flavor of the month.  (For all the calls of archers being OP I had no desire to respec back to archer.)

[RamsesXXIIX]

Now excuse me if you addressed this already, but I was concerned about a couple of things when different classes can attack each other and under what circumstances.

What you seem to miss is the effectiveness of the different classes, as well as a distinction between shielders and the other infantry.

For example: Since an archer can attack very often, his effectiveness with these attacks are rather reduced in comparison to when, say, a twohander attacks. This should be obvious.

As such, I find the use of that table limited.

To further address it, you claim that an archer can (almost) always attack infantry, but I dare to disagree, mainly because of shields. If I have a strong enough shield and don't let myself get outflanked, I am practically invulnerable to an archer. Therefore the archer can not attack me. If we size it up (Multiple shields Vs multiple ranged), terrain starts to be the deciding factor. In an alley the archers would not do the shielders much harm, while in a valley around steep hills they would destroy them.

What i'm trying to say is that the game is too complicated for you to put things into that table and assume anything really - I know you accept this, but you still try to. As such, I have a hard time following your logic.

One more thing: You address the effetiveness of classes versus other classes, but you're only taking out the current classes of the game while neglecting future classes - as such you seem to undermine the community's ability to adapt.

Lets take a classic example: Shielders are more effective against archers than 2hander/swinging poles. As such, according to your system, archers would rape the game if they started to increase in numbers. However, as we saw during some periods of cRPG, the community adapted. The phrase "get a shield" is from these times, as all infantry needed protection against ranged, whether they were 2hander, pole or 1handed.

Furthermore, you neglect hybrids in your system of classes (the very first).

There might be more points for me to address, and if you've already answered some of my points in you post you don't need to answer me now. I'll find them myself.

Finally, very nice enthusiasm

[Joker86]

Reducing everything to rock-paper-siccors  is like a spreading plague among gamers since Sega took over publishing total war series.
Some melees are more offensive while some are supporting. Some has more survival against ranged while others are hunted so.
I'd hate a game when i say "Here is X class i'll kill him easy!" or  "Omg Y class i have no chance, i should lay down and die"

That's a key question about what kind of game cRPG/strat is meant to be.

If you have a more or less viable chance against every other class, you have a much skill based, rather arcade-like game.

If you are very strong against some classes, but very weak against others, you have something different. Teamplay becomes much more important, and you win not by the best skills and fastest reflexes, but with the best tactics.

I would like something in between. Anyway, there is no way we can achieve either of both extremes, just check horse archer vs. 2-hand-infantry, it is clearly a case where the infantry can lay down and die. You NEED the help of other teammates, in this case the ranged fighters. 

Also suggesting balancing with active atack periods is just wrong. You can't punish archers because they have range atack.

I wouldn't call it punishment if you just consider the fact that they are more variable. I bet most people trying to balance things out would instinctively concern the fact that archers can engage almost anyone at almost any time. That's what ranged fighting is meant to be.

Actualy those add variety to gameplay and are alot realistic than vice versa. I'd hate a game where each class had same difficulty to play.

I understand what you say, and I agree to a certain degree.

I like the idea of "difficult to master, but once mastered really effective", as it sounds fair to me on the first glance. But if we assume that every player increases his skills playing cRPG, he will sooner or (much more likely) later reach the peak of the possible skills for his class. Now if he has not mastered the "difficult" class, but on of the "easier" ones, and balance is done by the principle of "difficulty=effectivity", then he would be punished to have chosen another class over the most effective one, although he would have the needed skills to also master the most effective one. You know what I am getting at?

Given, that the top players usually try to max out their performance, sooner or later they would all have to switch to this one particular, most difficult class. It would lead to something like "All good players play 2-handed-infantry" (please don't argue about my example  ), which again is not the idea of free character choice.

[Joker86]

There is an element of rock-paper-scissors in play that does work whenever the players don't stubbornly cling to their particular build.

For example, "archers are overpowered".  Suddenly there are more throwers and shielders.  Archers are not so overpowered anymore.  "Cavalry is overpowered".  Suddenly there are more pikes, archers and throwers.  Cavalry is not so overpowered anymore.  Etc.  It's really only a problem when people pigeonhole themselves in a narrow build, like a full STR two-hand build with absolutely no counter to archery or throwing.  They'd rather complain on the forums than adapt their crap build (or crap playstyle) to something more versatile.

I get what you want to say. Things are kind of regulating themselves, and you are right about this.

But in my eyes people SHOULD be allowed to stick to the build they like to play with, that's the point of a cRPG without classes or other bigger restrictions.

Most people don't play the class they think the server needs or something like that. I think there are two kinds of people: the opportunistic and the idealistic ones. The opportunists always try to play the currently most effective build, while the idealistic ones stick to the build they like most.

As soon as a new patch is out, and a class gets some buffs, usually the number of players of this class goes up accordingly. It's those opportunists changing to the flavour of the month. And as it is OP in many cases, the rest (= the idealists) suffers from them. Only few players change to the counter of the new buffed class, and it takes quite some time until some kind of balance is reestablished again, and usually that's the point when a new patch comes.

In my eyes a good balance renders this self-regulating system unneeded. When archers are overpowered, people only have to switch to throwers and shielders if they like to, and not because they think they have to do so to at least have a chance on the battlefield. The only way to achieve this is to make all classes about the same strength.

I hope you get what I mean. First we have the basic unbalances I wrote about. Then we have the balancing from the developer, which is meant to change those basic imbalances. And finally we have the adaption by the players, which determines the finaly gameplay on the servers.

[Basic conditions] -> [Balance by developers] -> [Adaption by players]

What I would like to see is, that the second step is done that well, that the third step, "adapting to the balance" is not needed any more.

[Joker86]

What you seem to miss is the effectiveness of the different classes, as well as a distinction between shielders and the other infantry.

[...]

What i'm trying to say is that the game is too complicated for you to put things into that table and assume anything really - I know you accept this, but you still try to. As such, I have a hard time following your logic.

Well, I used the different colours to show the effectiveness, otherwise I would have used only red and green (can't/can attack).

I don't know how this table would have looked like if I made more differences, for example cavalry doesn't contain horse archers who would get totally different colours than ordinary cavalry.

The simplified table was only a matter of practicability, not actual belief. 

 

One more thing: You address the effetiveness of classes versus other classes, but you're only taking out the current classes of the game while neglecting future classes - as such you seem to undermine the community's ability to adapt.

I don't know which new classes could be "invented" by the player. The only thing I could imagine would be the implementation of firearms, as I saw someone posting a picture of some model files from the newest patch, showing a primitive handgun.

But still this doesn't matter much, as the only purpose of the picture was to show that a RPSS doesn't work here, due to different relations of "I beat you" and "you beat me" with different classes. (As a reminder: a working RPSS always needs the same amount of beating and beaten things)

And, as I wrote in my posts above yours (I divide them so I can be quoted better, I hope the mods don't kill me ), I think the need to adapt is some kind of constraint of which I think it doesn't fit to the idea of free character choice and development. So to increase freedom concerning your characters you have to lower the need to adapt to something.

Lets take a classic example: Shielders are more effective against archers than 2hander/swinging poles. As such, according to your system, archers would rape the game if they started to increase in numbers. However, as we saw during some periods of cRPG, the community adapted. The phrase "get a shield" is from these times, as all infantry needed protection against ranged, whether they were 2hander, pole or 1handed.

Furthermore, you neglect hybrids in your system of classes (the very first).

There might be more points for me to address, and if you've already answered some of my points in you post you don't need to answer me now. I'll find them myself.

Finally, very nice enthusiasm
[/quote]

[Peasant_Woman]

[Basic conditions] -> [Balance by developers] -> [Adaption by players]

What I would like to see is, that the second step is done that well, that the third step, "adapting to the balance" is not needed any more.

But then the opportunistic players will play whatever the basic conditions favor. There will be always be slight imbalances and any advantage, no matter how tiny will cause the opportunistic players to take advantage of it. My point is that even if the stats are perfect on paper the outcome of a cRPG battle is far too dependant on other factors which are out of the players hands.

Map design is a big one along with player skill on an individual and teamwork related scale, which ensures that any perceived imbalance is probably more caused by;

1) A bad team (autoimbalancer)
2) A bad map (community needs to offer actual FEEDBACK to mappers. Sadly, most just go 'shit map' and refuse to go into why or offer suggestions to improve them)
3) Bad personal skill (mistakes)

So only once the autobalance no longer favors clan stacking, once every map in the rotation offers something for every class and once we have a very high average skill level for all players can we hope to get any real data on stat imbalances. Balance the basic conditions and then balance by developers will have more meaning.

[Joker86]

But then the opportunistic players will play whatever the basic conditions favor. There will be always be slight imbalances and any advantage, no matter how tiny will cause the opportunistic players to take advantage of it.

If the basic conditions are evened out well, and the balance is done that well, that there is as good as no difference between the developer balance and the adaption by the players, even the most opportunistic player should simply shrug and play the class he likes most. I hope so, at least.

My point is that even if the stats are perfect on paper the outcome of a cRPG battle is far too dependant on other factors which are out of the players hands.

Map design is a big one along with player skill on an individual and teamwork related scale, which ensures that any perceived imbalance is probably more caused by;

1) A bad team (autoimbalancer)
2) A bad map (community needs to offer actual FEEDBACK to mappers. Sadly, most just go 'shit map' and refuse to go into why or offer suggestions to improve them)
3) Bad personal skill (mistakes)

So only once the autobalance no longer favors clan stacking, once every map in the rotation offers something for every class and once we have a very high average skill level for all players can we hope to get any real data on stat imbalances. Balance the basic conditions and then balance by developers will have more meaning.

I agree wholeheartedly. 

This is something important I wanted to come back to, later. The offered maps are a great part of the balance, together with some other stuff like ladders heavily shifting balance between ranged classes and the rest. 

[Rusty_Shacklefjord]

Great thread, and great idea. I support it 100%.

I think one of the biggest advantages of the system that you're proposing is that it allows players to use the build of their choice, rather than forcing them to grind for gold and use gear that they don't like. It increases diversity and player customization, which is what cRPG is all about.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how this would fit in with weapon stats and difficulty requirements. For example, wouldn't a player high wealth, heavy armor and an expensive weapon play similarly to a player with low wealth, high iron flesh and power strike? It seems like there's little difference between wealth and skill in many cases, since most skills serve primarily to buff the same stats as equipment. Higher IF and stronger armor both buff durability, PS and stronger weapons both buff damage, shield and stronger shields both buff shield HP, riding and better horses both buff handling, ect.

Of course, either way I still think it's better than the upkeep system.

[Slamz]

The only way to achieve this is to make all classes about the same strength.

I think this is impossible, or at least, I think it's impossible within the context of a semi-realistic medieval setting.

In a fantasy or sci-fi setting, sure, you could do this.  Wizards are too weak against warriors?  Just give them a "Transmute Enemy Armor Into Mass of Horrifying Spiders" spell and now it's all perfectly balanced again.

But in a semi-realistic medieval setting, what do you do to, say, 1H shielders to balance them against cavalry?  (Extra true if he insists on using something like a military hammer.)  He's got a short weapon which is no good for hitting horses and he's got a shield which is worth fuck-all against a cavalry charge.  In a fantasy setting we could give shielders a "Legs of Iron" magical ability that lets them ignore horse bumps when holding their shield up, or maybe even rears the horse, but that's a bit of a stretch for a medieval setting.  Better to just accept that 1H shielders suck against cavalry charges and anyone wanting to be prepared for that will have to pick up a pike or else learn some throwing.

Similarly, how do you make a dedicated 2H morningstar user balanced against archers?  In a fantasy setting we could give the morningstar a "Wings of the Righteous" magical ability that sends the wielder flying at the enemy archer from 20 meters away.  In a realistic setting he just kind of gets shot up and again had better diversify a bit if he wants to pick up some sort of anti-archery ability.



So basically I think what you state is possible, but not without seriously compromising the concept of cRPG:

In reality, a guy with a two-hander facing an archer on an open field is at a pretty serious disadvantage, and cRPG aims to accurately reflect that.  It comes down to teamwork and/or diversifying your build to make it work.  Two two-handers versus two archers might really suck but a two-hander and a shielder versus two archers might work out fine.  You don't need balance on the 1v1 level to have "balance" on the team vs team level.

[Joker86]

There is not a single point I can say something against, as you are totally right.

The reason why I looked at the different classes in "duel" situations is that motivation is experienced by single players.

To make a couter-example which is really extreme, but it serves to show what I mean:

If cRPG will once reach a level of realism really close to reality a new attribute is introduced, called wisdom. You need this wisdom attribute to level up your "siege engineer" skill, so be able to build catapults. Problem: a Trebuchet needs Siege Engineer 10 to be build, but also "siege weapon handling" (another wisdom skill) 5 to be operated. Our siege engineer doesn't have enough points to also operate the trebuchet, and thus he is limited to build it and then to watch the siege, as he has no real fighting capabilities.

With the trebuchet the attackers manage to break the walls and take the castle. Without the others the siege engineer could never have daptured the castle, but without him the other never would have, too. So they are both equally important and thus you have team balance. But I wouldn't call this system balanced from the point of view of the siege engineer.

You also have to balance the "fun" a class is granting, as it is an important aspect for the balancing (determining the percentage of a particular class found on the server, which, in combination with the "natural counters" and weaknesses, determines overall balance, especially concerning the team level).

[ArchonAlarion]

M&B/Crpg is better off going the realism/teamwork route imo. It is the path less traveled in game design, so it creates a unique niche and new genre which the game can have a monopoly on for some time. Rock-paper-scissor is basically an anti-teamwork state, and teamwork is becoming more important as multiplayer games rise to the forefront and computer mediation of ptp communication becomes more transparent. As graphics improve and become more realistic, players will increasingly expect the game mechanics to function realistically/consistently.

Something left out of this discussion, but extremely important is the way that map structure and server population affects balance. To achieve a perfect balance you would need to heavily regulate map structure/size and the size of the population within the battles because some weapons, styles, classes, etc. do better under certain conditions than others. That would be bizarre and counter-intuitive, seeing as players should choose tools to adapt to the environment, rather than adapting the environment to fit the tools.

[Lysander]

Basic imbalances of the game

Hi there!

First things first: this is not another whine thread, if anything it's the opposite.

I want to elaborate basic game mechanics, different relations between the classes and perhaps, if I don't write some bullshit here, this could make us all together see some new ways to improve the balance of the game.


"Counters"


First of all I want to start talking about a sentence that often drops: "But XYZ is the natural counter to ZYX!". In my eyes cRPG doesn't have any "counters", neither soft nor hard. A counter always implies that it's designed that way, which is wrong IMHO.Usually, if you design with counters, you have a closed circle, which looks like this:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



It's the famour rock-paper-siccors-system (RPSS). Everyone knows it, and it works very well.But cRPG bases on Mount & Blade, which bases on medieval warfare. And in medieval warfare noone took care that you could beat another weapon with yours, but also could be beaten well by a third one. You wanted a weapon that beats everything. You wanted to play rock-paper-siccors-shotgun.

Just as example: heavy cavalry wasn't meant to be beatable by anything, and for many hundred years it wasn't. Unlike the common belief it was not the firearm, but the disciplined infantry blocks with long polearms that initiated the descent of knighthood.

"But there we have it!" You could shout. Infantry beats cavalry, then cavalry beats archers, and thus the logical consequence would be that archers must beat infantry.

It would look this way:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


But as you can see on the question mark in the middle: does it work this way? Yes and no. Sometimes it does, in most cases it does not.

First of all we have way more classes than those 3 basic ones. Although cRPG is a game without class restrictions, you still have basic fighter types. This is what I found:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



Again we have a question mark in the middle, simply because you couldn't see anything any more if I really drew a line from every class to all other classes.

And here we stumple across our first problem: in every working RPSS you have the same amount of beaten things and beating things. I this requirement isn't met we have an imbalance, because there will be something that wins against more things than it loses.

But let's compare a poor pikeman (my favourite example for an underdog) with a horse archer (my favourite example for a my old friendgo.. I mean, versatile fighter ;-) ).

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


visitors can't see pics , please register or login


visitors can't see pics , please register or login



I think it's obvious that the chances aren't distributed evenly, and indeed the horse archer can fight more enemies on the battle field, and he can fight them better. This is the first basic imbalance of the game, and I fear this one can never be evened out totally.

Participation


Then we have another basic imbalance, concerning the classes. For this imbalance it's enough to get back to our system with the three classes, which means infantry, archers and cavalry.

cRPG is a game, and we all play it. But WHEN exactly are you playing it? While spectating and waiting for respawn? Well, a little bit, I would say. While running around the battle field? Well, that's already better. While attacking an enemy, expecting him (or yourself) to die any moment? Yes, that's it. cRPG is not a Tycoon-game, it's not about building something, it's about fighting and killing others. That's what you want to do, it's the ultimative goal of the game.

Now let's have a look: WHEN do you fight someone?

As infantryman you fight someone when he approaches you, or you approach him. You have to walk, and you are slow. So you need to become faster.

That's why you put a horse under your butt and become cavalryman. This way you can inevitably reach anyone who hasn't got a (faster) horse himself or is hiding in a building. Which usually is most of the population on a server.

But the best method is to not even have to reach an enemy. So you decide to fight over range. You become archer, crossbowman, or perhaps thrower. What does this mean?

Let me try to show in a table WHEN you can attack WHOME:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


You read the table as follows:
Read it in the three lines "Infantry" "Cavalry" and "Archers", on the very left column. Reading from left to right shows you possible targets depending on the time on the map. Each time section is divided into the three possible enemy classes.

So the first line would be read as:

(click to show/hide)

After spawning infantry can't attack anyone (all three boxes are red). In the early game it can only attack cavalry, if it allows to do so (= approaches), its box is orange. The infantry still can't attack anyone else, so the other boxes are red. In the middle of the game, when the two forces clash, infantry can attack enemy infantry under fair conditions. It can barely attack archers, unless they allow it by approaching too closely, and they can barely attack cavalry, as it needs to do the same. At the end of the game infantry can attack other infantry at even chances, while the chances of infantry reaching an archer and killing him in melee should be about the same as the chances killing the infantry during the approach or after this in melee. Due to the superior speed of the cavalry latter still has an advantage over infantry.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


This table is really rudimentary, and it shows only the majority of all cases on an average map. OF COURSE there can be different situations, but we are trying to get a picture of the whole thing, so this should do the job. For all of those who don't agree with a certain colour in a certain box, here is my reasoning:

(click to show/hide)

INFANTRY:

Spawn: While spawning you can't attack any enemies, as they are way too far away from you.
Early game: In an early game you can only attack cavalry, under the condition that it's attacking you. So it's rather "defending against" cavalry than really attacking. You are moving, and you have to look arround constantly, so you are lacking overview, at least a bit.
Mid game: You can attack enemy infantry as well as they can attack you. Archers are more difficult to attack, as you must break through the enemy infantry and usually they took a good position, so in most cases the archers must be very close to you to be attackable, which means he "allowed" you to attack him. Cavalry again is most dangerous now, as you are fighting enemy infantry now, so they can ride by, attack you and disappear again before you even know what has hit you. So again you can fight them rather bad.
End game: Usually at the end of a game chances are even between all fighters, although cavalry got an advantage due to its mobility.

CAVALRY:

Spawn: Same as infantry. You can't attack anyone.
Early game: if you rush forward, you can attack the advancing enemies, but the archers will most likely concentrate on you, while your chances against other cavalry are about even. infantry can only attack you when you approach them, and usually you only do so if they are unaware of you, so in most cases you will have the advantage.
Mid game: again infantry will be disturbed by your own infantry, so there will be a lot of easy (= unaware) targets. Archers will become more of a problem, as they will take safe positions, and many of them will concentrate on cavalry, as the enemies will be covered by your own infantry. Enemy cavalry still remains an equal match.
End game: at the end of the game your chances against cavalry and archers are about the same. Perhaps you hit them first, perhaps they hit you first. And unless you are the last man standing you should still have good chances against infantry, as they can only attack you within a short range, and only if you decide to approach them.


ARCHERS:

Spawn: Often enough you spawn with enemies on sight. So on many maps you can immediately start attacking, but the enemy archers can attack you, too!
Early game: The enemy infantry will still be approaching, so you can shoot them as you like, they can't do much about it. Enemy cavalry could be riding around, so you will probably watch out for them an engage them, while they will try to engage you as well. Your chances against enemy archers are equal, as you both have the same conditions.
Mid game: Now you have taken a safe position and stopped moving, you most of the time you will be rather aware of your sorroundings. Your infantry is protecting you, so you need to come really close or be rather unaware to be attacked by some Ninja. Due to your good position cavalry will be less of a threat, so you can engage them freely as they circle around the battle.
End game: Now this is more dangerous, as you won't have a line of infantry protecting you any more. Also you will be driven out of your position most likely. Now your chances against everyone should be about equal. Perhaps you hit them first, berhaps they hit you first.

As you can see on the legend, every colour has its own "value". This value can be named whatever you want, versatility, fun, participated time...

If you add the values of each line and calculate the averages, you get the following results:

Infantry: 0,83
Cavalry: 1,67
Archers: 2,67

As you can see, the values, WHEN you can attack WHOME and how WELL differ drastically. Of course you can't take those numbers as absolute values, because archers surely are not three times as effective/fun/whatever as infantry, but it's clear that there are heavy differences. I think arguing about particular boxes in on this table wouldn't change anything on the "ranking".


So what we can comprehend from this section is, that different classes can participate in the battle at different degrees.


But that's not everything!

Controls

Not only how much and how well you can participate is important, also the fact how difficult it is. It's a question of the needed controls for your toon. I could make another table, but I decided to spare you and instead I will try to keep it short:


While infantry needs to approach an enemy in melee, block his blows manually, while he can block yours, both fighters trying to dodge and get around each other (= footwork), with the constant danger of being shot or ridden down, I think it is the most difficult class to control.

As archers don't need to be in melee at all, and most of the time indeed are not, the entire part with manual blocking falls away. The footwork remains, as you need to dodge the projectiles of enemy archers. Compared to the infantry the enemy can do less about your attacks, because only shields and dodging work, but no parrying. You can still be ridden or shot down. Aiming is added, as you need experience and instinct to hit an enemy. But if I compare the removed melee with the added aiming I say that under the line archer needs much less control inputs.

Cavalry doesn't need footwork at all, you constantly press W, correct the direction with A or D and sometimes slow down with S. From time to time you jump over obstacles. This can't really be called foot"work". Same counts for attacking. It's no realy melee, you chamber your blow, approach the enemy in high speed, release in the right moment and are gone before a real duel can even start. Sometimes you will hit something, sometimes you won't. You can still be shot, but not ridden down. Similar to the archer you need to be aware of enemy cavalry and archers, but not really of enemy infantry. All in all I would say cavalry needs the least control inputs.


Of course controls don't tell everything about how "difficult" a class is, but they definitely play an important role. In my eyes it is riskier to approach an enemy and kill him in melee than to shoot him from distance. I think modern tactitians would agree on that ;-)

Another important point is, what player THINK is easier. It doesn't matter how it is in reality, but most players should be afraid of manual blocking, and most of them should think it's easier to become a master archer with good aiming rather than a master infantryman with good blocking skills.


Now let's examine another possible source of imbalance in the game: the needed equipment!


Equipment prices

Infantry needs good armour and good weapons to be effective. Cavalry needs the same, plus a horse. Archers need a good weapon to be effective, while good (= heavier) armour would actually lower their effectivity again.

Of course the other two classes are slowed down by heavy armour, too, but the effects are nowhere near to the effect to archers.

Currently the most expensive Bow + Arrows cost 16.158 gold. The most expensive polearm is 15.634 gold, the most expensive two hander 18.777 gold, the most expensive sword + shield combo is even 20.856 gold. And in difference to the archers the other classes need medium or heavy armour, while archers do fine with light or even without armour at all!

Cavalry has really a disadvantage compared to infantry, as it needs the same equipment plus a horse, which renders only light cavalry sustainable.

Skills?

Another point, where I really don't dare to make a judgement are the skills. I am not sure if the amount of skills needed for each class is balanced or not, so perhaps one of you could elaborate this. I got the feeling it is pretty fair, but not perfect.

Summary

You can rejoice, we are close to the end of my elaboration. Let me post a last, short summary, which simultaneously represents

the tl;dr - version:

1. There is no (real) rock-paper-siccors-system in cRPG. Real "counters" don't exist in the initial meaning of the word, you only have things that work better or worse against others, but there is no balance in those relations.

2. Different classes can participate in the battle at different degrees (time, possible targets, etc.). Some more, some less.

3. The different classes need a different amount of control inputs, which definitely influences the "difficulty" of a class.

4. Different classes need different budgets for effective equipment. Great source for possible imbalances.

5. Different classes need different amounts of skill points spent. Another source for possible imbalances.


With these statements made my essay is more or less finished. I thought long about it, and I finally decided to bother you with my old alternative suggestion which was meant as alternative for the upkeep system, and again I see some advantages of it, so I will repeat it in a heavily shortened version.

Approach to a solution


Basically you can divide character development into two aspects: skills and equipment. You can use these aspects to represent two axes in a graph:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Of course character's can't move along those axes endlessly, there are caps. Sooner or later you will reach the maximum equipment possible, and, depending on the cap, the level, too.

With the old cRPG things looked like this:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


The equipment was hard capped, as sooner or later you have farmed all of the best equipment you need for your class. Any further progression since then was made on the horizontal axis, by leveling up. There was some kind of soft cap, but we had many players that crossed it. The bright blue area is the potential a player could reach, and the more far away from (0|0) they are, the bigger the square is they create, the more powerful they are. Of course everyone tried to reach the point at the top right, so ultimatively everyone ended up at the same point.

It looked like this:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


As you can see, the different player (the coloured boxes) were all apporaching the top right corner, and when they reached the hard euipment cap they moved along the skill axis, leveling up their characters. Your either had "perfect" characters, or you were working on one. (the smaller boxes that didn't reach one cap yet).


Then the upkeep patch came. Its biggest difference was, that the hard equipment cap was moved lower and changed to a soft one. Now it was the price of your items, that represented the cap, instead of the mere unexistance of better equipment. But still, things remained more or less the same. Again you first farmed the best possible equipment (determined by the combined price in relation to the effectivity), and then you work on breaking the level cap. Characters of same classes developed the same.

The new potential looks like this:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Basically like before, with some small changes (lower equipment cap, changed to a soft one).

So again leveling looks like this:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Again it's the best to try to reach the top right corner. Again you have many similar builds.


Balancing is done by changing item stats, balancing the different classes by their equipment. The only balancing by skills was achieved by changing the difficulty of an item. I think this is where we need to start, as you could also use the skills to balance classes.

Another problem are the item prices, which becomes especially obvious in the case of archers. You can't make bows as expensive as it would be needed, as players would need to long to farm them and thus lose motivation. An important part of the motivation of cRPG is buying and using new items, so we must allow players to constantly "reward" themselves by buying items, while taking care that their usage on the battlefield is always balanced.

The only solution I found for this was to seperate the item price in the shop and the item value on the battlefield. This is why I will start now to use the expressions "price" and "value" with two different meanings deliberately.

The price is what you pay on the webside in the shop while purchasing an item. The value is the amount of gold that's shown in your ingame inventory, with absolutely the same mechanics like in native. If your overall equipment value exceeds your budget, the number will turn red and you can't spawn/spawn without some items. You can call this budget "prosperity" or "wealth" or whatever.

Your wealth is a fix number determined by your level. Every new level your wealth grows a little bit. Additionally we need a hard level cap introduced.

An important new feature would be the ability, to turn both skill and attribute points to wealth points. The relation stays the same, which means 2 budget points = 2 skill points = 1 attribute point.

With this system, the new conditions for character development would look like this:
(Notice that the soft level cap on the right side is a mistake, it's a hard one)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


The maximum development line (it's actually a radius) is created by the simple fact that you can either maximize equipment OR skills, but never both, creating some kind of "quarter circle" around (0|0).

Creating a potential that looks this way:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


(There you see this quarter circle)


Basically players would have the same problem like with the upkeep system: "What is the best equipment I can get for a certain value?", but in difference to the upkeep this value would remain constant, thus making your character development more predictable. If someone wants better equipment he is free to do so, but he will have to pay it with worse skills. With this change, the different characters would hopefully look like this:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


You would have both more possibilities and more variety.

To finally achieve some kind of balancing, I would suggest to remove any penalties of respeccing the characters, and heirloom points should be freely distributable. You could implement some cooldown timer or gold cost to prevent players of testing all builds within an afternoon and losing motivation due to this.

The purpose of this change is having the player base adapt much faster to balance changes, so that you can see within a week where the server population would develop to with the current item stats. Once a good balance is achieved, the changes above get reverted, respeccing costs XP again and heirlooms remain final, as usual.

My idea surely doesn't solve all problems, but at least the effects of Nr. 4 and Nr. 5 (see above, "Summary") get lowered.

I hope I don't get too many "tl;dr", because in fact i don't care who didn't read it. I want you guys to correct me if I said/assumed something wrong, and I want you to think about what I wrote, to decide whether you support it or not, and if not, whether you have an alternative/superior suggestion or not. Feel free to discuss every little point, I will do my best to try to stay open minded. I know ofen enough I behave simple minded, and this can become really tiresome for you, but this time I will really try to accept different opinions and allow people to convince me of their beliefs. 

WOW

I started to read, and than I scrolled down and got overwhelmed by such a long post. And i scrolled and scrolled but there was no end! Very impressive. Even when I have no idea what you are saying, +1 to your post!!