07-13-2004, 07:44 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2004, 08:51 AM by MongoJerry.)
THE ROCK-PAPER-SCISSORS MODEL OF PVP BALANCE
(Note: I am posting this on multiple forums).
As a player on the PvP server and a veteran of more than a few interfaction skirmishes, I've taken an interest in some of the discussions of PvP balance on several World of Warcraft forums. In particular, as a priestess player, I can't help but chuckle at the complaints of mage players when they get destroyed by priests and therefore compose scathing posts about how the priest is too powerful and should somehow be "nerfed" in PvP. They say this despite the fact that if priests were really the most powerful characters, they wouldn't be among the least popular classes in the game.
"Perfect" PvP Balance
Most of the arguments over PvP balance come from the mistaken notion that all characters of all classes should have an equal chance of winning in a duel against a member of any other class, provided that the levels, items, and skill of the combatants are comparable. This sounds like a nice goal, but there are several problems with it:
It's impossible to achieve. There is no way to have classes with intrinsically different styles of play be perfectly equal to one another in PvP. There will always be some class that will be found to be "better" than the others and that class will quickly become the dominant class. If that class gets nerfed later to adjust balance, then another class will be found to be the most powerful. The only way to achieve perfect balance would be to give every class essentially the same skills. i.e. Everyone gets a sleep-like spell, everyone gets an AoE attack of the same power, everyone gets a healing spell, everyone gets a missle-fire attack of the same damage, etc. Sure, you can give the attacks different names and graphics, but in essence every class becomes the same and if that happens, you might as well not have different classes at all!
You wouldn't want it even if it were possible. If every class were equally capable of killing every other class, then it doesn't matter what class you pick, and PvP becomes very boring. Basically, the winner comes down to who has the highest level, who has best items, who has the most people in the party, and who had the jump on the other guy. The fights have very little strategy to them, and it starts to not matter what a party is made of. A group of five mages can fight a group of five warriors who can fight a mixed group of five characters. All fights become the same and are dull. One's selection of class comes down to how one wants to look, rather than the special advantages and disadvantages of the class.
The Rock-Paper-Scissors Model of PvP Balance
If "perfect PvP balance" is impossible to achieve and would be boring even if it could be achieved, is there an available alternative? Yes, what I call the Rock-Paper-Scissors model of PvP balance. In the common game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, two players independently choose rock, paper or scissors. In this game, rock smashes scissors, scissors cut paper, and paper covers rock. A person who strives for "perfect PvP balance" will claim that this game is horribly unbalanced, because a person who chooses scissors will always lose to the player who chooses rock, a person who chooses paper will always lose to the player who chooses scissors, and a person who chooses rock will always lose to the player who chooses paper. (*)
But in truth, the game of Rock-Paper-Scissors is perfectly balanced. Each choice has one opposing choice it can beat and one opposing choice that it is defeated by. Other than psychological factors (I usually pick paper, because most people instinctively pick rock), no choice is better than any other.
This same model can be used to effectively balance the character classes in World of Warcraft. Do mages almost always lose to priests? I say that's great! That is, as long as there's a class that priests fear, like say, shamans. How would this system work? Let's take a hypothetical example of what could compose PvP balance in WoW (note: This is not how the game is now, but it could easily be made this way).
(Note: I am posting this on multiple forums).
As a player on the PvP server and a veteran of more than a few interfaction skirmishes, I've taken an interest in some of the discussions of PvP balance on several World of Warcraft forums. In particular, as a priestess player, I can't help but chuckle at the complaints of mage players when they get destroyed by priests and therefore compose scathing posts about how the priest is too powerful and should somehow be "nerfed" in PvP. They say this despite the fact that if priests were really the most powerful characters, they wouldn't be among the least popular classes in the game.
"Perfect" PvP Balance
Most of the arguments over PvP balance come from the mistaken notion that all characters of all classes should have an equal chance of winning in a duel against a member of any other class, provided that the levels, items, and skill of the combatants are comparable. This sounds like a nice goal, but there are several problems with it:
It's impossible to achieve. There is no way to have classes with intrinsically different styles of play be perfectly equal to one another in PvP. There will always be some class that will be found to be "better" than the others and that class will quickly become the dominant class. If that class gets nerfed later to adjust balance, then another class will be found to be the most powerful. The only way to achieve perfect balance would be to give every class essentially the same skills. i.e. Everyone gets a sleep-like spell, everyone gets an AoE attack of the same power, everyone gets a healing spell, everyone gets a missle-fire attack of the same damage, etc. Sure, you can give the attacks different names and graphics, but in essence every class becomes the same and if that happens, you might as well not have different classes at all!
You wouldn't want it even if it were possible. If every class were equally capable of killing every other class, then it doesn't matter what class you pick, and PvP becomes very boring. Basically, the winner comes down to who has the highest level, who has best items, who has the most people in the party, and who had the jump on the other guy. The fights have very little strategy to them, and it starts to not matter what a party is made of. A group of five mages can fight a group of five warriors who can fight a mixed group of five characters. All fights become the same and are dull. One's selection of class comes down to how one wants to look, rather than the special advantages and disadvantages of the class.
The Rock-Paper-Scissors Model of PvP Balance
If "perfect PvP balance" is impossible to achieve and would be boring even if it could be achieved, is there an available alternative? Yes, what I call the Rock-Paper-Scissors model of PvP balance. In the common game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, two players independently choose rock, paper or scissors. In this game, rock smashes scissors, scissors cut paper, and paper covers rock. A person who strives for "perfect PvP balance" will claim that this game is horribly unbalanced, because a person who chooses scissors will always lose to the player who chooses rock, a person who chooses paper will always lose to the player who chooses scissors, and a person who chooses rock will always lose to the player who chooses paper. (*)
But in truth, the game of Rock-Paper-Scissors is perfectly balanced. Each choice has one opposing choice it can beat and one opposing choice that it is defeated by. Other than psychological factors (I usually pick paper, because most people instinctively pick rock), no choice is better than any other.
This same model can be used to effectively balance the character classes in World of Warcraft. Do mages almost always lose to priests? I say that's great! That is, as long as there's a class that priests fear, like say, shamans. How would this system work? Let's take a hypothetical example of what could compose PvP balance in WoW (note: This is not how the game is now, but it could easily be made this way).
- Warriors beat Rogues
<>
- Mages beat Warriors
<>
- Priests beat Mages
<>
- Shamans and Paladins beat Priests
<>
- Rogues beat Shamans and Paladins<>
[st]
The idea is that every class has one or two classes that it "pwns" in PvP combat and one or two classes that it gets "pwned" by. This model is better than the "Perfect PvP Balance" system for two reasons:
It is possible to achieve. It is possible to achieve this kind of balance, because to implement it, you ironically introduce imbalances to the game that make certain classes overpower their target class. Some extreme examples would be: Want priests to always beat a mage? Give them a shield that makes them immune to fire and cold attacks for 20 seconds. Want shamans to always beat priests? Give them a curse that prevents the target from being healed. At the farthest extreme, you could give each class the ability to Death Touch members of a specific other class. I won't actually campaign for any of these ideas specifically, but they show that it is possible to create this style of balance, because in fact, one is ironically introducing imbalances to the game.
It's fun! When two groups of opposing factions fight, an element of strategy gets introduced. The group that gets the best matchups or recognizes and focuses all of its firepower on the most dangerous enemy will win. The group that doesn't loses, so an element of tactical skill is introduced to the game.
Also, the balance of power on a server can shift rapidly over time. If the Horde overloads itself with mages, then they'll find Alliance players creating priests to take advantage of those "easy pickings." When the Alliance overloads itself with priests, however, Horde players will start up shamans. When the Horde has too many shamans, Alliance players will start making rogues. And so on. In this way, the balance of classes will chaotically shift over time on the PvP server, meaning that people might want to have leveled up several characters of different classes so that they can pick the character of the right class for the battle ahead.
If you're still not sure if this could work in World of Warcraft, all I can say is that it's already working in WoW on the PvP server. It seems like half the Horde chose to play undead, and why not? Those people must have thought to themselves, "Hey! I can't be slept, feared, or charmed. I'm going to be invincible in PvP!" Certainly, the early whining by non-undead mages getting killed by undead mages supported this theory. But those undead players forgot something! Paladins and priests have skills designed specifically for attacking undead. Those same undead mages who slaughter non-undead mages get slaughtered themselves by any priest or paladin of their level. But, in turn, non-undead mages are able to Polymorph ("sheep") non-undead priests or paladins and give such characters a run for their money in a duel.
The Rock-Paper-Scissors model of PvP balance works. I hope that the discussion of PvP balance can turn away from statements like "Class X always beats Y, so X should be nerfed" and instead turn toward statements like, "Class X fears fewer classes than any others, so perhaps class Y should get a special ability to counter class X." I also hope that Blizzard keeps this model of character class balance in mind and doesn't give in to the pressure to create the impossible to achieve "Perfect PvP Balance."
(*) Yes, I know about Joey from Friend's version of the game where rock always wins. I think most mages who complain about priests secretly prefer that kind of "balance."
