Character Balancing

[Darkbridger]

As others have pointed out... balance is a very tricky thing to hit, and the diversity of replies here is a good refelection of how hard it is. I haven't finished the game yet with either character, but I have 2... a caster and a meleer. Early on, they were both fairly equal. Lately though, the caster is lagging behind in combat effectiveness. I really don't like sleeping to recover mana so much. It's too frequent and it's annoying. My meleer can plow through a lot more enemies than my caster can before needing to stop and rest or heal.

Basically, my meleer with a little magic added feels a heck of a lot more fun and viable than my caster with a little melee added feels. Now, it's just perception... I'm sure other players like their casters more or for longer into the game than me, or make better use of their combat skills. I do agree that with enough access to magic, you really don't need some skills, and in that way, magic is a bit overpowered. But in combat effectiveness, magic has felt increasingly underpowered, and more importantly, not fun, the farther into the game I get.

Oh, and because I am split on how the magic skills are balance-wise, I can't answer the current poll. Magic is both overpowered and underpowered.

[realmzmaster]

Getting game balance right for every gamer is impossible. The best any designer can hope for is that the majority think the game is balanced. If the majority feel the game is unbalanced then you have a problem. If you look at the poll some think mages are overpowered, some think melee characters are overpowered, but what BW and any other designer has to worry about it what the marjority think. You are not going to please everyone. You can only hope to please enough people to make your game successful. Yes, you want to please the three classes of gamers mentioned in this thread, but it is not always possible. Rare is the game that pleases all three. BW and the others have tried to strike a balance , so that newcomers, oldcomers and power games can play the game. If you want to have the badest assed character this game may not be for you. If you want to have fun in the old-school definition this game is a blast! (A blast from the past.) Newcomers can also join in the fun. The game manual needs definite improvement. But Basilisk games probably needed to get the game out there to get sales and help cover their costs. I love the game. It brings back memories. Before any one thinks I only know about oldies, I have played crpg and action crpg from the early days Ultimas, Might & Magic all the way up to Oblivion, Titan Quest, NWN and Dungeon Seige II.

[Loriac]

I'm not saying your wrong. I'm saying if you're not stepping back far enough to see why those changes are necessary, you're going to miss other things that need changing.

Perhaps this response is out of date (I've been a bit busy the last couple of days).

To be honest Quasius, I'm not really sure what your point is - you talk about class archetypes in a skills based game, and you seem to have this idea that you're able to see exactly what this game should or shouldn't be, whereas everyone else who doesn't agree with you just doesn't see things as clearly as you and is wrong or only partially right.

The point you're missing about my suggestions is that they already incorporate the 'bigger picture' thinking you seem to be talking about. Its just that the bigger picture I'm seeing differs to yours. In particular, my view is that the classes in this game are irrelevant (really, the game has two classes - hp focus vs. mana focus, but this isn't a major thing - and slightly off-topic, it may be a good idea to have a third type, 'balanced' who doesn't get any +'s or -'s to hp and mana).

Because I think the classes are irrelevant, my focus is on how you balance the skills - the meat of the current character design system. You want to play a game where classes count for something, and so you have a different design goal in mind. Thats the difference, your vision is neither better or worse than anyone elses.

[Loriac]

Basically, my meleer with a little magic added feels a heck of a lot more fun and viable than my caster with a little melee added feels. Now, it's just perception... I'm sure other players like their casters more or for longer into the game than me, or make better use of their combat skills. I do agree that with enough access to magic, you really don't need some skills, and in that way, magic is a bit overpowered. But in combat effectiveness, magic has felt increasingly underpowered, and more importantly, not fun, the farther into the game I get.

Oh, and because I am split on how the magic skills are balance-wise, I can't answer the current poll. Magic is both overpowered and underpowered.

Fair point - I would just add though that when you talk about magic in combat, if you're looking at direct damage type spells, then you probably are going to be underwhelmed. However, if you take the full picture, i.e. offensive and defensive buffs and status effects, what you find is that magic gives you a lot of options in combat, which powers up the 'magic major / melee minor' build a lot. I find that having this range of options is more fun, whereas perhaps some people find the raw bashing power of a melee major / magic minor build more fun - either way, if you play to your build's strengths, the game is easy.

Whats interesting however is comparing these two builds to melee only or magic only, you find that the hybrids are much better (mechanically, and in terms of options and fun). This I think underlies your comment about magic being overpowered and underpowered - if its your only tool, you'll think its underpowered. If its one of your tools, you'll find it overpowered.

[Darkbridger]

Basically, my meleer with a little magic added feels a heck of a lot more fun and viable than my caster with a little melee added feels. Now, it's just perception... I'm sure other players like their casters more or for longer into the game than me, or make better use of their combat skills. I do agree that with enough access to magic, you really don't need some skills, and in that way, magic is a bit overpowered. But in combat effectiveness, magic has felt increasingly underpowered, and more importantly, not fun, the farther into the game I get.

Oh, and because I am split on how the magic skills are balance-wise, I can't answer the current poll. Magic is both overpowered and underpowered.

Fair point - I would just add though that when you talk about magic in combat, if you're looking at direct damage type spells, then you probably are going to be underwhelmed. However, if you take the full picture, i.e. offensive and defensive buffs and status effects, what you find is that magic gives you a lot of options in combat, which powers up the 'magic major / melee minor' build a lot. I find that having this range of options is more fun, whereas perhaps some people find the raw bashing power of a melee major / magic minor build more fun - either way, if you play to your build's strengths, the game is easy.

Whats interesting however is comparing these two builds to melee only or magic only, you find that the hybrids are much better (mechanically, and in terms of options and fun). This I think underlies your comment about magic being overpowered and underpowered - if its your only tool, you'll think its underpowered. If its one of your tools, you'll find it overpowered.

I'm not experiencing that highlighted bit above. Both characters get buff magic and improved range of options. A minor magic buff on an already weak melee skill is underwhelming. A minor magic buff on a weaker armor skill is also underwhelming. Also, the magic dominant character finds it far more painful to spend mana on those buffs when the resistance and damage output of magic isn't keeping up with weapons. He needs that mana for combat, and even with better regen, I would prefer to kill things without feeling like I need those melee based buffs. (In case the emphasis is missed, I grant that some might not perceive those as needed) The melee dominant character only has to worry about buffs and healing. The only time he uses magic for damage is simply to "pull" something or soften it up before the melee fight... but that's mostly because I don't like lugging a lot of arrows/missiles around and building up a ranged skill. So, I still feel that an increased range of options does more to power up a melee dominant hybrid than it does a caster dominant one. Which, again, is just my perception based on playing these two characters.

After playing my caster again last night, resting for mana really is the most un-fun part of that character. If it didn't occur so often, I probably wouldn't mind the seemingly weak spell damage. I'm not sure how that relates to the great scheme of balancing, or how best to address it. But your summary generally agrees with mine... magic is both underpowered and overpowered... it just depends on how you are trying to make use of it in-game.

[Loriac]

What would you class as minor vs. major magic? The thing about the buffs, apart from haste, is that they pretty much cost nothing over time - i.e. you regenerate the mana for a level 6 bless before the spell has expired, similarly for enchanted weapon etc, stoneskin etc. A magic major / melee minor should have these up all the time, and they make a huge difference to things like archery which has relatively weak damage otherwise.

Your point about 'needing' those buffs is valid for melee combat, but a magic major character is going to be using direct damage spells a lot, and falling back on melee when its tactically superior (ironically, I found it easier to start using melee against the really tough mobs, because with a medium amount of armor + chameleon + stoneskin + haste, you find that most mobs have 2% chance to hit and don't do much damage when they do. What you can't do in that situation is put down a lot direct damage as well, unless you chain-chug mana 3 potions as well).

As I said though, I think its a playstyle thing - I prefer the melee light, magic heavy build and find it fun (and tremendously overpowered); I would consider the melee heavy one to be weaker. The fact that you have the opposite experience probably means that its not a structural effect based on game mechanics, but a perception effect based on what the individual player enjoys.

[SnorriHT]

The game is just right, and I like the warrior-mage / melee focus!

[bkrueger]

I voted for "neither is too powerful" because the question was only about melee and magic. I would, however, support the view of some people in this thread, that rogue types may be underpowered, because they have to choose a lot of skills. So rogue skills should be maximised earlier than the others.

And the handbook should contain tables, which skills and attributes allow mean what at each level. This would allow people, who are beginners but want to plan their skilling, to easier understand issues.

[Nepharis]

Agreed on the rogue point -- they're definitely underpowered. To be effective they need so many skills.. eg if you want to be a stalker, you need hide in shadows, move silently, a weapon skill, and either alchemy or magic to get cat eyes, (plus light armor, but you don't need to pump it for DR, I guess) so four central skills. I've found with other characters that two is ideal, and three is a lot. I didn't actually play through with a rogue, so maybe you only need hide/move up to 4 or 5 ranks, but still.

I liked the Exile/Avernum (sorry, those pop to mind, I know there are plenty of other games that do it) method of having different skills cost different amounts of points, but then you lose the elegant simplicity of the current Eschalon system. *shrugs* One possibility would be lumping skills, for example have move silently and hide in shadows be put into a single skill ("Stealth", maybe); perhaps throw skullduggery and lock picking together (can't think of a name off the top of my head ). Just an idea, sorry if this has been suggested before, or is off topic.

Edit: more ranting on rogues:

The idea of so many rogue skills (hide, move silently, spot, traps, lock pick, etc) comes directly out of D&D. The reason it works for D&D is that rogues get twice as many skill points! (8+INTmod vs. 4+INTmod for most, if you're into that sort of thing) That's not doable in Eschalon, because there aren't hard classes. To keep the simplicity, I do think joining skills together is the way to go.

cheers
~nepharis

[GSV3MiaC]

I think there is a missing option in the poll. The game is pretty easy (if you roll a decent set of stats to start with) for a melee character with magic buffs (and healing in particular).

The game is ridiculously hard for a 'never touch a pointy thing' pure mage, because the damage spells are too low powered towards the end when the monsters have hundreds of HP.

The game is (IMO, other disagree) pretty hard for a pure fighter too, unless you tank up with potions or rest a lot.

Wherever you start from you tend to end up with a melee fighter who can cast heal and buff spells, and for them the game is not too hard once you get the hang of it.