Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5750982" data-attributes="member: 8835">In software development, it is generally known that there is no true perfect program that has no bugs.&nbsp; Especially the larger and more complex it is.The aim of software testing then, is to find and fix the most serious of them.In a game, especially the more complex it is, the harder it is to truly balance all the classes, skills and abilities.Yet, like software testing, the goal is to do so in order to have a playable game (that is one where all players are contributing and having fun).The most perfectly balanced RPG would have 1 class with no customizable skills, advancement or equipment.&nbsp; Then every PC is truly the same.&nbsp; And boring.Obviously, players want variety.&nbsp; hence all the rules and stuff.But balance ensures that what Timmy wants doesn't stomp on Bobby's fun.Now Wushu having the same math for all PCs is like that silly example I gave.&nbsp; 4e making everybody have differently named powers that all have the same effect is more of the same.Conceptually, it's balanced if my PC gets more attacks, but does less damage, compared to your PC that does fewer attacks but more damage.It gets fuzzier outside of combat if my general combat skills are worse than yours, but I have great social skills.&nbsp; Social skills that never get used because we spend all the time in fights then unbalances things.People talk about the old days being balanced.&nbsp; And of nobody talking about balance back then.&nbsp; Recall that until the 90's, Game Design wasn't even a field of study in college.&nbsp; While subconciously, designers may have had ideas in their head, it was never a formal concern.And the much vaunted 1e balance over time wasn't.&nbsp; If a campaign only lasts 1 year, and it takes a year to get to level 5, then my wizard is going to suck for the entire campaign, while your fighter kicks butt the entire time.There were always problems.&nbsp; They just may not have been apparent or encountered by everyone.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 5750982, member: 8835"] In software development, it is generally known that there is no true perfect program that has no bugs. Especially the larger and more complex it is. The aim of software testing then, is to find and fix the most serious of them. In a game, especially the more complex it is, the harder it is to truly balance all the classes, skills and abilities. Yet, like software testing, the goal is to do so in order to have a playable game (that is one where all players are contributing and having fun). The most perfectly balanced RPG would have 1 class with no customizable skills, advancement or equipment. Then every PC is truly the same. And boring. Obviously, players want variety. hence all the rules and stuff. But balance ensures that what Timmy wants doesn't stomp on Bobby's fun. Now Wushu having the same math for all PCs is like that silly example I gave. 4e making everybody have differently named powers that all have the same effect is more of the same. Conceptually, it's balanced if my PC gets more attacks, but does less damage, compared to your PC that does fewer attacks but more damage. It gets fuzzier outside of combat if my general combat skills are worse than yours, but I have great social skills. Social skills that never get used because we spend all the time in fights then unbalances things. People talk about the old days being balanced. And of nobody talking about balance back then. Recall that until the 90's, Game Design wasn't even a field of study in college. While subconciously, designers may have had ideas in their head, it was never a formal concern. And the much vaunted 1e balance over time wasn't. If a campaign only lasts 1 year, and it takes a year to get to level 5, then my wizard is going to suck for the entire campaign, while your fighter kicks butt the entire time. There were always problems. They just may not have been apparent or encountered by everyone. [/QUOTE]

Verification