Game Balance is a Mugs Game - Use Exp Modifiers Instead?

[Grind]

I know that many of you have great programming experience and maybe you can shed better light on this for me with regards to game balance. Please keep open mind and provide feedback - I am not looking to provoke people, just looking for honest feedback on an idea.

What I see is that by and large player whining on the CoH boards is a relative-to-another-avater  thing, whereby, various classes campaign to have more AC, Hps, Damage per second, in order to make their characters on par with another build.

But fundamentally, restoring game balance for the various avatars at this point and in this manner is a mugs game. For example, Tanks lobbying successfully for more damage and less end costs will cause scrappers to want more damage per sec... and then if they get it, blasters will want more damage/sec or more hps. End result is that developers will need to increase mob difficulty to sustain interest and then the cylce repeats in some fashion.

The REAL question here is only, how fast are the various avatars able to gain exp per hour taking into consideration death/risks. THIS statistic can be easily derived from the VAST amount of data that is available to the programmers from in game results.

Instead of playing around with ac, dps, hps, and other stats for the various avatars, why not just have an exp adjustment modifier for each of the avatars based on real statistics. Groups would have these modifiers averaged among the avatars and group exp divided out equally among players to promote grouping. As a result, higher exp/hour avatars willing to group AND group with slower exp/hour avatars (tanks) since with the modifer and averaging in groups, it washes. There would be much less squabbling on hps, dps, ac as well since exp/hour issues are the real issue and are effectively addressed. [edit as per Murkos' comments->] you would make the modifier be on a per avatar per level basis since some avatars are more effective at different points in their careers relative to other avatars and explains why they gain more exp/hour in game at their more 'effective' levels relatively speaking.


Grind



Ps. reason I see the mugs game with statistics is the following:

- Mobs have, by and large, equal hps whether they are attacking with range or melee. Their melee damage is, however, a Lot more effective then their range.

- Melee heros have better ac at the lower levels and less than three times the hps as a ranged hero. Melee heros do not have 3x the damage output per sec, in fact, ranged heros have WAY more damage output (esp. on AOE considerations) than melees. Ranged allows you to get off a few attacks (with surprise/fight initiation) as well. Since buildings and blind corners increase chances of a ranged hero running into melee range of a group of mobs and being one shotted, they just grind outdoors and issue is solved.

- Result is that the active hero population base is blasters and grinding in outdoor missions in groups. Few other avatars playing actively in comparison (or are secondary alts) and few of these at the high end levels.


Grind

[Phred]

The REAL question here is only, how fast are the various avatars able to gain exp per hour taking into consideration death/risks. THIS statistic can be easily derived from the VAST amount of data that is available to the programmers from in game results.

Grind

As this is the basis for your thesis that follows, I think you need to prove it a little better. For one thing, this thesis assumes everyone solos, which is clearly not the case in CoH. Hence, many of the cries for more effectiveness in classes are derived from feeling unneeded in groups, not because of leveling rates. People want to feel useful when they play with other players, hence controllers who have to stand around watching everyone else kill the ultimate arch villain in a task force are  complaining because the AV was just made immune to their powers and they feel useless. They get the same experience as the blasters and scrappers beating on it. Same with tankers playing in groups where controllers make their ability to take large amounts of damage unnecessary, as without their role as damage soakers they are just totally gimp scrappers.

Start with a faulty premise and any conclusion is meaningless.

[Murgos]

Ps. reason I see the mugs game with statistics is the following:

- Mobs have, by and large, equal hps whether they are attacking with range or melee. Their melee damage is, however, 3X more effective then their range.

- Melee heros have better ac at the lower levels and less than three times the hps as a ranged hero. Melee heros do not have 3x the damage output per sec, in fact,

That is horrible logic.  You arbitrarily assign a value to mob melee combat as being 3 x more effective than mob ranged combat and then try and equate that directly to hit points and damage output by players.  If you did samples of reasonable sizes and then performed regression analysis I'm pretty sure that none of your numbers would show any dependancies on each other.  They are all seperate independant variables.  At least thats what being a programmer tells me about your logic, which makes me doubt any other conclusions you may draw here.

An exp gain modifier may or may not have a balancing effect here but you certainly are providng no proof that relief is even needed.

Why is this distinction important?  Because your call to action rely's on the fact that melee characters are quatifiably inferior to ranged characters.  Not only inferior but as much as 1/3rd as effective.  This is obviously not true because any doofus can sit and watch tankers and scrappers stand at melee range with multiple mobs at upper levels for ungodly amounts of time taking no or minimal damage and at the same time see a blaster get caught in melee range and die within seconds.

I'm not saying an exp modifier is the right or wrong way to approach class imbalance but what I am certainly saying is that you have provided no evidence at all that it is in anyway neccessary or that it would be an effective solution if it was implemented.

I am almost certain that the appearance of blaster supremacy is almost entirely due to grass is greener envy and a slower progression to effectiveness than other AT's.  Blasters are effective at thier task from word go, tankers/scrapper/controllers need many of thier advanced powers to 'fill out' to achieve a similar level of effectiveness.  My opinion is that it's the progression of power effectiveness that needs to be adjusted not any one ENTIRE ArchType.

[Grind]

What Murkos says is valid for certain, but this can be easily adjusted via having the modifier LEVEL based per avatar, i.e. tankers may have differnt modifiers based on their level and effectivness, again based on actual real life evidence across all players across all servers etc. No need to debate what is perceived versus real, since they have real evidence.

In terms of the premise.. I am not saying people solo, blasters certainly solo or duo with another character for certain levels but definitely get into groups of blasters at the high end. And exactly what Phred says, other avatars feel useless if they are in groups of these blasters.

I just read a thread by a developer regarding the rough melee versus range damage. Since I thought this was common knowledge I can go find that thread if needed. But for the sake of discussion, lets assume it is more and not argue if it is 3x oe 3.3x or 2x etc.

Anecdotally, we have posters here who state things like... I can take on Rikti but as soon as they put down those energy ranged weapons and two or more pull out their blades..... my scrapper pulls out of the combat. Probably due to the fact that blades/melee damage from these mobs is way higher then with ranged.

There was an interview with the developers I can find which stated taht blasters represent the majority of active players and it is increaseing. The thread went on to state that the developers are promising to have upper end be such that a group of blasters does not continue to dominate as the optimal groiup... as it does now. Again I can find the thread if it is needed to discuss whether an exp modifier could be implemented and make sense.



Cheers,
Grind

[Murgos]

Let put this experience modifier question in an abstract and take it into the realm of the absurd.

Class distinctions base:

Class A - Smooth power curve fun to play at all levels capable contributing to any facet of game play.

Class B - Horrid, boring gameplay, doesn't provide a 'meaningful' experience at any level.   At low levels it's too weak for good group play and at higher levels it's unnecessary for good group play.

Hypothesis:  Increasing the rate at which class B gains experience will make class B more desireable.  Let's say class B now levels 3 times faster than class A

Class distinctions post mod.

Class A - Smooth power curve fun to play at all levels capable contributing to any facet of game play, grouping, soloing, etc...

Class B - Horrid, boring gameplay, doesn't provide a 'meaningful' experience at any level.   At low levels it's too weak for good group play and at higher levels it's unnecessary for good group play.  Levels Much faster than class A.

Now is class B more desireable?  No, not really as it hasn't actually changed in a meaningful way.  Fixing one of class B's 'problems' would have made a difference but just shrtening the bar doesn't do much good - you just get a few more high level class B's whining on the boards about how they suck.

There is nothing conclusive here and I stayed away from specific examples for a reason but in the abstract changing exp reqs of a weak class still leaves it a weak class.

[SurfD]

Ps. reason I see the mugs game with statistics is the following:

- Mobs have, by and large, equal hps whether they are attacking with range or melee. Their melee damage is, however, 3X more effective then their range.

- Melee heros have better ac at the lower levels, the same amount or MORE HP then ranged heroes, and at higher levels, are many many times MORE effective at mitigating incoming damage then ranged heroes

There, fixed it for you.

Fact of the matter is, if they ever did fix the scrapper's deficiencies in hitting a moving target, EVERYONE with half a brain would drop blasters like hot rocks and play a scrapper simply because of the Insanely better damage mitigation.  The only reason that people think blasters are over powered is because they watch a good blaster with multiple AoE attacks grinding in a hazard zone, and never bother to carefully examine the other mele classes and how good they do when played properly.

[Grind]

SurfD I love the way you think :)
I think if people on the CoH boards saw this, they would start to lobby for exactly what you suggest. Soon, if it got implemented, scrappers would be the flavour of the month and the cycle would continue. :)

But judging by Murkos' excellent points, this may actually be an impossible issue to solve. I guess there may a few optimums to play:
1) play what you really LIKE to play regardless of whether it is optimal from a gaming perspective. As long as it it pleasing to you, esthetically speaking, you are having fun.

2) play what the majority of players are playing because if there are adjustments, the creator of the game is much more likely to ensure that the greatest masse of people are satisified, i.e. cater to the masse. In EQ this was druids, then rangers, then everyone else. In CoH this may arguably be the blasters currently.
3) Play an enabling class like a healer since it will always get groups easily regardless of how gimp they are on their own. Just be happy with the fact that soloing will never be in the cards in any game, but you are very very group friendly.

:)
Grind

[Alkiera]

SurfD I love the way you think :)
I think if people on the CoH boards saw this, they would start to lobby for exactly what you suggest. Soon, if it got implemented, scrappers would be the flavour of the month and the cycle would continue. :)

Does anyone else remember seeing a statement like this, almost word-for-word, in a thread here back in march/april, when CoH was in beta?  'Here' was definately a different forum at the time, maybe gaming, maybe the old CoH forum, but I'm pretty sure it was on f13.

That, or my ESP is acting up again.  I hate that.  It's not very useful, I don't ever remember I've predicted something until it actually happens... Then I'm like, 'Hey, this sounds/looks very familiar....'

--
Alkiera

[Sky]

I wonder what it's like to put so much thought into gaming. I log on and play until I'm bored, end of thought process.

[jpark]

I wonder what it's like to put so much thought into gaming. I log on and play until I'm bored, end of thought process.

hehe ya but if you enjoy both - these discussions have an advantage.  Barring a nightclub you can have them anywhere.  Nothing better to break the pace of the workday with a little speculation.

I know you're poking good fun, but this type of speculation can take on some more serious elements.  Dewdney's book Planiverse is a good example - an almost serious discussion of whether a 2D world is possible based on a fictional computer simulation described in the book.