What IS balanced?

[Polobow]

So, seen alot of threads about saying stuff isn't balanced ( 'This is UP!' 'leaving, my old friend & archer game')

Let's reverse the question. What do you think IS balanced? I just posted generals, if there's any specialty i forgot, comment about it.

[GaenaralHONK]

game is balanced - whiners may suck my dick, then go grow some skill

[IG_Saint]

1h, 2h and polearm all need item tweaks (side sword, barmace/iron mace, hafted blades/long maces). Crossbows, bows and cav are fine. Hybrids need some tweaking. Retirement/heirloom system needs an overhaul.

[MrShine]

I voted cav is fine, but I think that's really due to map rotations.  Cav can be so great some maps and so awful on others that I think that balanced them in my mind.  I love watching good cav players, but I'd hate to be one tbh. 

[Joker86]

You can't ask "what is balanced?", as balance always needs two things you compare. It's like asking this 

There is a basic effort/effect relation concerning balance. Things are balanced as long as the effort you put into your actions always has the according effect. Killing someone in meele for example is more difficult than killing someone over range. So your overall effectivity has to be balanced accordingly. This is why archers have less armour, got slower shot animations, throwing weapons have very limited projectiles per stack and so on.

Currently we have a higher effort/effect relation value concerning ranged weapons, which leads to the ranged spam we currently have. Of course there are always people of both sides claiming the class they play was balanced and the other was OP, and the other players would just have to get some skill, stop whining or give up weapons slots for special counters. I don't want to comment this.

All I say is: if we had submachine guns and repeating rifles in this mod, and the submachine guns were estimated as too powerful BY THE DEVELOPER, then he would have two options:

- nerf SMGs
- buff rifles

Depending on this decision either SMGs or rifles would be balanced. If the developer will change item balance in the next patch, and I assume he WILL, then this vote is totally depending on the developers decision what to buff and what to nerf. The whole matter is a question of definition.

[Felagunda]

Anything that is cut damage that you can't use with a shield is balanced.  You balance it but wearing armor.  Oh what a concept that is!  Now other things like steel pick, Miltary pick, sidesword, Long Iron mace, and Bar Mace are a few I can think of that need tweaks but it's not many.  Well and xbows espically heavy and sniper need WPF to be accurate but other than that people just need learn to block & wear some armor.  If they are really bad or lazy they can 1h shield or pro shield with spear or alwpike.

[Penitent]

When I first read the thread title, I thought it was like a pseudo-academic inquiry into the meaning of "balanced."  What IS balanced, anyways?

Does it mean that players of equal skill using different weapons will always battle to a draw?  How is it even possible to measure "equal skill?"

Or maybe if there were 2 teams of 25 players each, and they all had the same proportion of different weapon/playstyles...and they fought 100 battles...the will/loss ratio should be 50/50?  This is also impossible to measure...how could we go about it?

Or maybe the weapons style that most players use is always assumed to be the more OP one.  But what if certain play-styles just appeal to the masses more, and seem more "cool" than others and are more popular for that reason?

Or maybe "balanced" is just a socially constructed figment of our collective imaginations..and if we are killed repeatedly by a certain weapon, (or do poorly with a certain weapon) we will label it unbalanced...and if enough complaints surface, that label is then justified?  But would this really be a scientific/objective method of determining balance...one based on opinion and perceived effectiveness...when combat in this game is influenced by so many factors??????

Anyways, I thought a discussion like that would be quite entertaining. 

[Felagunda]

When I first read the thread title, I thought it was like a pseudo-academic inquiry into the meaning of "balanced."  What IS balanced, anyways?

I did too.  Yes it wouild have been entertaining.   I made a post even though it was not of the nature I first thought it would be.

[DrKronic]

Actually taking into account lobbyists polluting the poll more people so far have said everything is balanced

Out of 23 response with the margin of error for people who will purposely not vote a weapon class as balanced still the most common response has been an all vote withholding "chadz" option as being balanced

Don't listen to lobbies or special interests truth is a true pro can suceed with any weapon type right now

Now if u are average keep playing or just whine on these forums

[IG_Saint]

Don't listen to lobbies or special interests truth is a true pro can suceed with any weapon type right now

That doesn't mean it's balanced. It's reasonably balanced but there are still some tweaks needed. Just look at the current state of the barmace, perfect example of not balanced.

[Punisher]

The game is reasonably balanced, pure builds need some buffing, at the moment it doesn't make much sense to go for a pure build, this leading to the massive amounts of ranged spam. Also there are some weapons that need nerfing (barmace, long iron mace, side sword, long hafted blade, long hafted spiked mace, huscarl shield etc) but overall the game is more balanced that it ever was.

Like someone said a while ago, the fact that people complain about pretty much everything being OP (check the game balance forum section) is a good indicator that the game is quite balanced.

[Felagunda]

The game is deffinatly more balanced that it ever has been before.  I must agree as I have stated in other post that AGI needs some love.  Also the purebuilds do.  A few weapons nerfed but that is it.  People that complain all day about OP stuff probably never played the game back last August - Nov and have no clue how far things have come.

[Literally_Circler]

you dont have throwing there which is the only thing i think is unbalanced

they hit with the power of a crossbow, but the player can release projectiles with the same speed as an archer
on top of that they can use a shield with it as well, which no other ranged class can do

[The_Bloody_Nine]

nothing is really OP. Only range in masses is very annoying, but from the perspective of an archer (thrower I cant say) defenitely not to powerful.

[Polobow]

When I first read the thread title, I thought it was like a pseudo-academic inquiry into the meaning of "balanced."  What IS balanced, anyways?

Does it mean that players of equal skill using different weapons will always battle to a draw?  How is it even possible to measure "equal skill?"

Or maybe if there were 2 teams of 25 players each, and they all had the same proportion of different weapon/playstyles...and they fought 100 battles...the will/loss ratio should be 50/50?  This is also impossible to measure...how could we go about it?

Or maybe the weapons style that most players use is always assumed to be the more OP one.  But what if certain play-styles just appeal to the masses more, and seem more "cool" than others and are more popular for that reason?

Or maybe "balanced" is just a socially constructed figment of our collective imaginations..and if we are killed repeatedly by a certain weapon, (or do poorly with a certain weapon) we will label it unbalanced...and if enough complaints surface, that label is then justified?  But would this really be a scientific/objective method of determining balance...one based on opinion and perceived effectiveness...when combat in this game is influenced by so many factors??????

Anyways, I thought a discussion like that would be quite entertaining. 

Actually, i'm fine with this. Discuss what 'balanced' exactly is, if you want .