The thing is, D&D was built around the idea of perfect imbalance. Unless you mean to tell me that there is not a definite difference in strengths and weaknesses between fighters, rogues, mages etc in D&D.
....
I don't think you grasped the idea completely. "Perfect imbalance" or asymmetric balance would mean something like rogue kills magic users but is helpless against fighters, fighters kill rogues but are helpless against magic users. Something like that. For example in Dragon Age origins, rogues can be replaced by templars. That is the asymmetry of the system. The balanced is a closed system like a triangle(for 3) or circle(for more options).
D&D is based on roles, not character powers. There are defender, controller, striker and leader. All good at roles, not having power over class.
0
vindiconMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I don't think you grasped the idea completely. "Perfect imbalance" or asymmetric balance would mean something like rogue kills magic users but is helpless against fighters, fighters kill rogues but are helpless against magic users. Something like that. For example in Dragon Age origins, rogues can be replaced by templars. That is the asymmetry of the system. The balanced is a closed system like a triangle(for 3) or circle(for more options).
D&D is based on roles, not character powers. There are defender, controller, striker and leader. All good at roles, not having power over class.
Well, in that case you can change "class" with "role" and you still get the same result... defender is strong against striker, striker against controler, controler against defender etc... or at least I suppose that this is how it works in 4e. Once again, my D&D experience is with the 3.5e in NWN2, and that is how things worked more or less there...
Well, in that case you can change "class" with "role" and you still get the same result... defender is strong against striker, striker against controler, controler against defender etc... or at least I suppose that this is how it works in 4e. Once again, my D&D experience is with the 3.5e in NWN2, and that is how things worked more or less there...
No. Because (following your logic) when you face monsters with role of striker, defender or controller; it does not mean that your fighter will go and hit striker, striker hits controller and everything would depend on which enemy reaches first, if it was a case of asymmetric balance (or perfect imbalance) when fighting monsters. Rather than that, Defender will just try to engage all of them. And he will survive if combined effort is good - it is team play based startegy to cover each other's weaknesses.
This method of asymmetric balance is very old and raw one. It is kind of quick fix when things get too complex and have to be kept simple to maintain fair fighting grounds. For example it was used in final fantasy 7 also, in the minigame of the pheonix mountain. If you play it, you will get the idea what the the concept is about. It has been applied fantastically well to some PvP based games - which is an innovating concept(new application of old concept), but it won't work for a complex game like D&D with already established strategies.
EDIT: I didn't realize you were not familiar with 4e. So i will add a bit more to explain the above stuff. In 4e, monsters also have roles. Some users have put a wiki to explain that. Check this and this. In 4e, classes are more or less similar. They have same number of utility powers, same number of XXXX power (Replace XXXX with utility, daily, at will etc). All the classes can be made to be survivable or dps based. But in game, I don't think there will be hybrids, just iconic classes at first as shown in demos.
So monsters also have roles just like players. If a certain role clashes a monster with other role, it doesn't makes a PC weaker or stronger. It is more of a teamwork to survives waves of monsters with varied role with same strategy of co-operation.
0
vindiconMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
No. Because (following your logic) when you face monsters with role of striker, defender or controller; it does not mean that your fighter will go and hit striker, striker hits controller and everything would depend on which enemy reaches first, if it was a case of asymmetric balance (or perfect imbalance) when fighting monsters. Rather than that, Defender will just try to engage all of them. And he will survive if combined effort is good - it is team play based startegy to cover each other's weaknesses.
This method of asymmetric balance is very old and raw one. It is kind of quick fix when things get too complex and have to be kept simple to maintain fair fighting grounds. For example it was used in final fantasy 7 also, in the minigame of the pheonix mountain. If you play it, you will get the idea what the the concept is about. It has been applied fantastically well to some PvP based games - which is an innovating concept(new application of old concept), but it won't work for a complex game like D&D with already established strategies.
EDIT: I didn't realize you were not familiar with 4e. So i will add a bit more to explain the above stuff. In 4e, monsters also have roles. Some users have put a wiki to explain that. Check this and this. In 4e, classes are more or less similar. They have same number of utility powers, same number of XXXX power (Replace XXXX with utility, daily, at will etc). All the classes can be made to be survivable or dps based. But in game, I don't think there will be hybrids, just iconic classes at first as shown in demos.
So monsters also have roles just like players. If a certain role clashes a monster with other role, it doesn't makes a PC weaker or stronger. It is more of a teamwork to survives waves of monsters with varied role with same strategy of co-operation.
My logic never was that defender being strong against striker means that defenders beat strikers without breaking a sweat. It just means that the battle is in their favor and under perfectly balanced conditions they would come on top. Though ofc that is not exactly the case, as the defenders are always supposed to have a few controllers and strikers backing them up.
But we were talking about the general idea of it, and I fear we are deviating a bit.
Gear should play a roll in the game as it does in any RPG, even in novels does a characters Gear play a role in their ability to kill strong monsters. Gear in Neverwinter should not be that of WoW, you should not need to grind dungeons over and over again to get a piece to drop, or a raid Tier after Tier. However there needs to be some gear progression, Drizzit got icingdeath from killing Ingeloakastimizilian. So players should replace gear as they progress in end game and new dungeons come out and they kill powerful Monsters, but it should be a piece of gear they hold onto for long periods of time, not replace every 2 or 3 months. 6+ months should be the rule or they pick up a secondary weapon that might help out in certain situations like a Fire sword to fight a Frost Giant.
People can also say their should be NO RAIDS or this GAME SHOULD BE FULL SANDBOX. Thats the way to become a under populated MMO and the game then becomes a very lonely game and not enough money to sustain it. So There should be Raids and instanced dungeons, there should also be SandBox type dungeons like UO had. The raids should be on the Smaller side 8 or 10 people MAX, Raids should be made by the players and Developers to allow more content to be playable. 20, 5 or 6 boss instance raids can could be very enjoyable so its not the old Raiding grind its more hey lets go take on this raid instance for 2 hours. The boss fights should have 2 or 3 mechanics to them that the party has to overcome to win, they would not be hard raids by a long shot but they would be more Epic in the fact they are not DPS races, its more about boss control. A piece of gear like IceingDeath would enhance the damage against a demon for example during the fight, where mabye the mage with the group is a fire mage and his damage is minimal. But controlling the boss from doing its massive attacks allows the party to overcome and destroy him.
This is very similar to a discussion we had several months ago that was burried when Cryptic/PWE decided to completly hose the forums with the linking (which really means create a new account) of accounts.
Yall might wanna take a look here and see what we came up with a while back and take off from there. It'll save you alot of time and possibly give you some new ideas.
Well, in that case you can change "class" with "role" and you still get the same result... defender is strong against striker, striker against controler, controler against defender etc... or at least I suppose that this is how it works in 4e. Once again, my D&D experience is with the 3.5e in NWN2, and that is how things worked more or less there...
That's not how it works in 4e. Since 4e wasn't geared for PvP, like most DnD games, the classes weren't judged on how easy it is to defeat the others. Rather, they were balanced on 'what they bring to the table'. Controllers, hands down, are weaker against the other role in terms of individual target damage and defensibility. However, they can lock down targets better than just about any other role. They also tend to handle groups of enemies better than other roles. In other words, pitting a Controller up against a any other roles, they're not likely to win.
Dungeons and Dragons is not a PvP game. PvP balance and PvE balance are Apples and Oranges. Pitting tow characters of the same role against each other works for PvP, but otherwise, the characters are NOT intended to hold out against characters of other roles.
I believe that you have the general idea of the mechanics so I would drop it and leave your opinion to your own judgment. But in case you are more interested in how a game like NW can be, I would ask you to look into 'Rusty Hearts' by PW. It has active combat, is mainly PvE based with parties strengthening each other, and has a PvP arena. Also, it has limited builds and I believe NW will also have builds like that - Tickster rogue, Guardian fighter etc. Although I hope that the locked builds of classes are so so many, that no one feels restricted.
Raids have their place, but if that is the extent of 'end game' they will be in trouble.
As for PvP, only 5% of the players will want to do it exclusively, and at best 10%
will do it at all. The 5 % is VERY vocal and tend to think it is 50% b:laugh
NWNO's ace in the hole is foundry, as long as the tool is available...new content
streams in daily. It will be a little spotty at first as authors learn the tool.
Then you have a period of..variable quality. New authors will learn what works
and what doesn't work via feedback and ratings.
Once the authors get on the same sheet of music, the content will stream in from
lvl 1 on up.
There will always be something new to do and it will not be exclusively end game
content.
Comments
I don't think you grasped the idea completely. "Perfect imbalance" or asymmetric balance would mean something like rogue kills magic users but is helpless against fighters, fighters kill rogues but are helpless against magic users. Something like that. For example in Dragon Age origins, rogues can be replaced by templars. That is the asymmetry of the system. The balanced is a closed system like a triangle(for 3) or circle(for more options).
D&D is based on roles, not character powers. There are defender, controller, striker and leader. All good at roles, not having power over class.
Well, in that case you can change "class" with "role" and you still get the same result... defender is strong against striker, striker against controler, controler against defender etc... or at least I suppose that this is how it works in 4e. Once again, my D&D experience is with the 3.5e in NWN2, and that is how things worked more or less there...
No. Because (following your logic) when you face monsters with role of striker, defender or controller; it does not mean that your fighter will go and hit striker, striker hits controller and everything would depend on which enemy reaches first, if it was a case of asymmetric balance (or perfect imbalance) when fighting monsters. Rather than that, Defender will just try to engage all of them. And he will survive if combined effort is good - it is team play based startegy to cover each other's weaknesses.
This method of asymmetric balance is very old and raw one. It is kind of quick fix when things get too complex and have to be kept simple to maintain fair fighting grounds. For example it was used in final fantasy 7 also, in the minigame of the pheonix mountain. If you play it, you will get the idea what the the concept is about. It has been applied fantastically well to some PvP based games - which is an innovating concept(new application of old concept), but it won't work for a complex game like D&D with already established strategies.
EDIT: I didn't realize you were not familiar with 4e. So i will add a bit more to explain the above stuff. In 4e, monsters also have roles. Some users have put a wiki to explain that. Check this and this. In 4e, classes are more or less similar. They have same number of utility powers, same number of XXXX power (Replace XXXX with utility, daily, at will etc). All the classes can be made to be survivable or dps based. But in game, I don't think there will be hybrids, just iconic classes at first as shown in demos.
So monsters also have roles just like players. If a certain role clashes a monster with other role, it doesn't makes a PC weaker or stronger. It is more of a teamwork to survives waves of monsters with varied role with same strategy of co-operation.
My logic never was that defender being strong against striker means that defenders beat strikers without breaking a sweat. It just means that the battle is in their favor and under perfectly balanced conditions they would come on top. Though ofc that is not exactly the case, as the defenders are always supposed to have a few controllers and strikers backing them up.
But we were talking about the general idea of it, and I fear we are deviating a bit.
People can also say their should be NO RAIDS or this GAME SHOULD BE FULL SANDBOX. Thats the way to become a under populated MMO and the game then becomes a very lonely game and not enough money to sustain it. So There should be Raids and instanced dungeons, there should also be SandBox type dungeons like UO had. The raids should be on the Smaller side 8 or 10 people MAX, Raids should be made by the players and Developers to allow more content to be playable. 20, 5 or 6 boss instance raids can could be very enjoyable so its not the old Raiding grind its more hey lets go take on this raid instance for 2 hours. The boss fights should have 2 or 3 mechanics to them that the party has to overcome to win, they would not be hard raids by a long shot but they would be more Epic in the fact they are not DPS races, its more about boss control. A piece of gear like IceingDeath would enhance the damage against a demon for example during the fight, where mabye the mage with the group is a fire mage and his damage is minimal. But controlling the boss from doing its massive attacks allows the party to overcome and destroy him.
Yall might wanna take a look here and see what we came up with a while back and take off from there. It'll save you alot of time and possibly give you some new ideas.
That's not how it works in 4e. Since 4e wasn't geared for PvP, like most DnD games, the classes weren't judged on how easy it is to defeat the others. Rather, they were balanced on 'what they bring to the table'. Controllers, hands down, are weaker against the other role in terms of individual target damage and defensibility. However, they can lock down targets better than just about any other role. They also tend to handle groups of enemies better than other roles. In other words, pitting a Controller up against a any other roles, they're not likely to win.
Dungeons and Dragons is not a PvP game. PvP balance and PvE balance are Apples and Oranges. Pitting tow characters of the same role against each other works for PvP, but otherwise, the characters are NOT intended to hold out against characters of other roles.
I believe that you have the general idea of the mechanics so I would drop it and leave your opinion to your own judgment. But in case you are more interested in how a game like NW can be, I would ask you to look into 'Rusty Hearts' by PW. It has active combat, is mainly PvE based with parties strengthening each other, and has a PvP arena. Also, it has limited builds and I believe NW will also have builds like that - Tickster rogue, Guardian fighter etc. Although I hope that the locked builds of classes are so so many, that no one feels restricted.
Raids have their place, but if that is the extent of 'end game' they will be in trouble.
As for PvP, only 5% of the players will want to do it exclusively, and at best 10%
will do it at all. The 5 % is VERY vocal and tend to think it is 50% b:laugh
NWNO's ace in the hole is foundry, as long as the tool is available...new content
streams in daily. It will be a little spotty at first as authors learn the tool.
Then you have a period of..variable quality. New authors will learn what works
and what doesn't work via feedback and ratings.
Once the authors get on the same sheet of music, the content will stream in from
lvl 1 on up.
There will always be something new to do and it will not be exclusively end game
content.