| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (25)

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 4:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I Still have nightmares about brightwizards from warhammer online.

Posted: Nov 16th 2009 4:29PM breezer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I still have nightmares about sorcerers.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 4:34PM Mr Angry said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Are there any concrete PVP plans for this game. I think I remember something mentioned in passing, but they don't seem to be trumpeting it right now, which makes me think SWTOR could be a largely PVE affair?

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 4:39PM eyeball2452 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm not a huge PvP fan, but not having some sort of PvP system in at release would be a big mistake for a supposed blockbuster MMO. Having said that, I hope the game focuses on PvE since that's what will drive the game. PvP is a nice, but it should be more of a mini-game than the main focus of gameplay.

I also think that things are still in a constant state of flux, so I wouldn't get all worked up about class balance yet.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 8:09PM CCon99 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well there are 2 factions each with similar classes on each side. On top of that, the heads at BioWare have said they were fans of Mythic's RvR system and visited Mythic a few times for discussions on their development (this was before EA wrapped up all their RPG/MMO divisions under one banner). Hopefully BioWare were talking about DAoC when they were saying they were fans of RvR though.

I would love to see a few neutral planets in SWTOR that both factions fight for control of. Planets that were 100% Faction vs Faction planets that had nothing to do with the PvE stuff they have planned. No RvR "lakes", no scenarios, no "flagging", just a giant planet map that's soul purpose is Faction against Faction PvP.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 4:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
How can journalists even write articles about pvp balance in a game that hasn't even been released, (let alone tested by anyone other than the creators)? I think it's way too premature to even talk balance...all the classes haven't even been announced!

All you can do is hope that they do it right, and accept what you get, because regardless of what Bioware thinks is 'balanced' upon release, there will always be whiners, complainers, naysayers, and people who just plain suck at pvp, saying that one class or the other is 'OP'd'.

Who cares if one side has a 'stealth' class and one doesn't. Travel with a friend if you're scared of getting ganked. Or better yet, roll a stealth and gank the crap outta someone.

On a personal note, I will be slightly disappointed if pvp balance is secondary to the rest of the content of this game. After all, it is a game based on 2 warring factions, so you'd expect a few battles in there at some point.

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 4:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I disagree with the statement that "direct equivalences....ensure that the game remains perfectly balanced."

Even "direct equivalent games" can become unbalanced.

For example:
Rogues in WoW at release, Shaman in early years of WoW, Paladins in current WoW.

MMOs that focus heavily on PvP will always have balance problems WITHOUT QUESTION. This is a tired discussion.

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 5:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When the author wrote "Direct equivalencies leech some of the flavor, but they ensure that the game remains perfectly balanced for both factions" he was referring to perfect INTER-faction balance (balance between the Sith and Republic, or in your example Alliance and Horde) NOT INTRA-faction balance which would entail perfect balance between classes within a given faction e.g. all available classes within the Horde are in perfect balance with one another.

WTB Reading Comprehension?
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 5:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Stormblue,

I find it interesting that you end your post accusing me of failed reading comprehension considering your inability to discern MY meaning. I will humbly take responsibility for this and gladly give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I was unclear. Please allow me to clarify my point for you.

If a games is plagued by "inter-faction balance" then it has usually been the case that, at least in the perceptions of the players, PvP is also unbalanced. If you have a single class that is OPed then PvP balance becomes an issue. It really doesn't matter whether or not the game has a generic class system. Unbalance is unbalance--whether it is "intra" or "inter," if there is the perception of unbalance then players will complain about balance.

My point is that since balance issues exist in any game (generic class structure or an every-class-unique structure) then why do we even need to ask the question that this article asks? This is why we get generic answers from developers during development. Because we consistently ask generic questions that illicit generic responses.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 10:15PM RogueJedi86 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jepurv, your analogies to WoW don't even work anymore, since the classes on both factions are identical now. Maybe you should think of the old days when Paladins and Shaman were Alliance and Horde specific respectively. Lots of crying about each being more powerful than the other, when they're mostly even. The Alliance said Shaman were OP, and the Horde said Paladins were OP.

Balance problems exist even in largely PvE games. Like LotRO, with its very narrow and small PvP, they're still constantly tweaking classes. Balance happens with or without PvP, and PvP just makes it fun, competing directly against other players.
Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 10:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ jepruv

This article makes a distinction between inter and intra faction balance, talking specifically in terms of WAR. The fact that you fail to recognize this makes your argument against this article ridiculous.

Also, you presuppose that there can never be balance in a PvP centric game. Where do you come up with this thought? I assume you're thinking WoW, but the problem with WoW isn't a question of balancing PvP between factions, it's a question of balancing between two styles of play, a synergistic 25-man PvE game, where classes are forced to bring damage, group survival and agro mitigation to a fight and a 5 man (at most, closer to 1v1, really) PvP game where classes have to perform well in personal damage output and survivability. As you can see, these two games are diametrically opposed and therefor WoW will never REALLY be balanced between these two halves of the same game.
WAR did arguably a very good job of balance between factions. One class might have outshined its equivalent but in total no one side had a clear advantage overall.

This is something that can be discussed pre-release, with a reference. Unless the Republic has an advantage in another class or the imbalance isn't what it seems, then it wont be an issue, but certainly conjecture is valid and it doesnt hinge on whether or not jepruv approves.


Reply

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 5:17PM mysecretid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As has been said, MMO games which feature PvP will always have people cryin' and lyin' about game balance from the first moment players meet the game.

All Bioware can do is build the best balance they can for launch day (i.e. nothing universally deemed "broken" by the playtesters), and then just fix and patch the system as quickly and as often as necessary, post-launch.

Moreso even than MMOs in general, PvP game balance is never finished.

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 5:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
IMO direct equivalences aren't necessarily a good thing. There is no reason you can't achieve balance without direct equivalences, and as another poster mentioned, even games that do still struggle to balance classes.

Take for example EQ1 - where the classes and class / race combinations were largely formulated based on lore. This meant there weren't necessarily direct equivalences (although there were some) and each class felt unique.

Then in EQ2, they decided to design the whole system very logically and with direct equivalences - 4 archetypes, 3 classes in each archetype, and (pretty much) a good and an evil sub-class in each class. Although I love the game, sometimes I feel like too many of the classes are samey - it is almost too well thought out.

I'd rather see more games with non-equivalent classes - give at least some completely unique abilities to the various factions and then spend the time to make sure, on the whole, they are balanced...

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 5:58PM Waxil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Balancing an mmo is basically impossible. The more classes, specs, an itemization you have the worse it gets. Make it faction based and you have to control factional populations on top of that. Further you have to deal with balancing it in PvE, 1on1 PvP, and mass PvP all while still making each class have a distinct and relevant group role. Soooo yeah, not going to happen, and there's really no point in QQing about it in any game.

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 6:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"To the best of everyone's knowledge there's no equivalent ability in the Smuggler's arsenal, the Republic's counterpoint to the Agent, and it's not much of a matchup when one side is invisible and the other side isn't."

Are you joking? You're just as bad as the general populace on the SWTOR boards, with your "I haven't seen it, thus it doesn't (and never will) exist" mentality. Do you seriously think Bioware is dumb enough to give stealth to one faction and not to the other?

Bioware has chosen to show unique abilities for each class, rather than double up with mirror ablities, to keep things interesting. Just because you saw a Bounty Hunter with flame thrower doesn't mean that the Trooper won't get a short range cone AoE as well. I'll say it again: they're creating variety in the demos and reveals with the display of different abilitites. The Smuggler will get stealth, as well as mirrors for most of the Agent's abilities. Yes, people, the Smuggler will be able to backstab, he will have an AoE like Orbital Bombardment with equivalent damage and all (just a different animation most likely), etc.

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 6:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Stealth is the crutch of the newb population anyway. 90% of the people I know that think they are awesome at PVP are absolutely horrible at it once stealth is taken away from them.

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 7:10PM Arkanaloth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
meh.. honestly I hope ToR is more PVE centric. It's impossible to make anybody happy in PVP since every class they can't beat consistently and easily is instantly "overpowered"

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 7:51PM Pewpdaddy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I concur with the arguments above, but to say that an imbalance is the norm for PvP based games is a little rough around the edges imo. It is true that imbalance happens but a good developer(which Bioware is) can normally keep it to a minimum. In reference to the comment about WAR, I pray it's nothing like that in PvP.... Mythic made no effort to balance their classes which in the end is what ran me away from WAR.

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 8:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't Bioware has ever been famous for pvp. I think a simple setup such as WoW-like battlegrounds would be sufficient for this kind of game.

Posted: Nov 15th 2009 10:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
ARENAS WOULD BE THE AWE-SOME!!
Reply

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: QueueAge

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 8:00PM

StarCraft II: An MMO player's perspective

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 4:00PM

One Shots: The sacred bosom dance

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW