22 réponses à ce sujet

[ForumPortal]

Every now and then, topics pop up about issues between the classes in ME1 and 2. Usually, pertaining to ME1, it's statements about how biotics are overpowered; with regards to ME2, biotics are considered underpowered compared to classes like the Soldier and Infiltrator. My question is: as long as it's possible to clear the game on Normal in one playthrough by a competent first-time player, does it matter? Should Bioware spend more time making sure every class is capable of an Insanity run? Or are there more important things they should be dealing with? And what about squadmates--should each squadmate be useful in the same amount of situations as another?

I'm curious to see discussion on the matter, because I think it's an interesting topic that deserves at least a bit of attention. Plus, it's better than arguing over Ashley's hair all day.  

[Phaedon]

The main issue is not the balance between the classes, imo.

The main issue is that at least one class is:

          a. Not as interesting as the others.

          b. Doesn't have enough good powers.

Now, b. may sound like class balance, but it isn't. You don't need to balance the classes towards one another, you need to develop a class enough to be fun to play, unique, and not too challenging.

Modifié par Phaedon, 12 juin 2011 - 10:12 .

[legion624]

I am not sure if this is on the same line as your post, but I was a little disappointed in the biotics powers from ME1 to ME2, both in strength and variety. Granted they added new ones, but also took several out. I personally think though that a soldier shouldn't have very strong biotic or tech powers because that is not what his class is about. I don't mind the idea of having squadmates that work best on certain missions. I remember in ME1 when you had to go to the moon and shut down the rogue AI and there were a ton of missile and gun turrets flying around, I wasn't able to beat it until I took both Garrus and Tali with me, then it was a cakewalk. Hope that is at least partially what you were looking for.

[hexaligned]

classes balanced against each other? No, that's pointless. classes balanced against the games AI capabilities? Yes, very important, at least to me.

Modifié par relhart, 12 juin 2011 - 10:18 .

[TheCrakFox]

It's not as important as in a multiplayer game of course, but it still matters.

More important though is how fun each class is, they need something that makes them stand out. This is where the engineer drew the short straw in ME2 I think.

[onelifecrisis]

For me, squad mate balance is much more important. Firstly, squad mates need to be equally powerful otherwise you end up using the same ones over and over. Secondly, squad mates should scale equally well to higher difficulties. ME2 failed in both respects.

As for the overall difficulty setting, it'd be nice if the player classes were equally well balanced. That way I can find the right difficulty for me on my first playthrough and not worry about finding it all over again for each of the other classes. But this is not essential for me, it's just Nice To Have.

[Da Mecca]

It's not balance per say, but a design issue.

Theoretically a perfectly designed game, every class would be equally as fun and offer a distinct difference in play style between them.

Frankly I don't think this has been the case in the past.

The only game that I think does this the best Vampires the Masquerade Bloodlines, but even then that game really only had two ways to go about things, fighting and stealth.

[Vez04]

I think this would be better to post in Off Topic forum.

[Clonedzero]

absolutely.
classes should be able to have a fairly equal challenge in completing the game.

having one class grossly outpower everything else is simply bad game design.

lets say they make biotics even less useful in ME3 (not saying they are, just an example), then what would the appeal of playing a biotic class be if they have a significantly harder time with the game bordering on frustration? its simply bad game design.

in ME2 the soldier, sentinel and infiltrator had a much easier time with the game than the other classes. anytime someone asked "im going to do an insanity run, which class should i use?" it was always those 3 as the answer. were the other classes underpowered? not especially. adepts have a much harder time in insanity, and vanguard can have a high learning curve.

but not having the classes be balanced properly to the game itself is bad game design. its like saying "hey, only play these 3 classes and just forget about the rest, we didnt design them as well lol".

anyone who says it doesnt matter because its single player, is well...dumb...

[Skilled Seeker]

For a single player game, balance by itself doesn't matter. What does matter is that all classes are fun to play. This can be linked to the power of the class. If a class is ridiculously OP or very weak then it will be less fun. Every class has to have something about it that makes it an attractive choice compared to other classes. Otherwise it shouldn't be there.

[KotorEffect3]

How the classes balance in the game is largely dependant on how the players approach those classes and what tactics they use when they are playing. Someone may be good with an infiltrator but they may struggle when trying to play as a vanguard. Funny thing is that I have died the most when playing vanguard but at the same time I have had the most fun when playing as a vanguard.

[Schneidend]

What matters is whether or not each class plays in such a way that all players can find something they like.

Part of this depends on the player's ability to adapt to the intended playstyle of a class. People crying about not being able to instant-kill shielded enemies with a single Throw need not apply.

[Thrombin]

I think the most important factor is that each class should present a distinctive play experience. Having every class able to take any weapon is a step away from that but, hopefully, other factors will kick in.

I think the whole idea of, for example. Adepts in Light Armour and Soldiers in Heavy Armour from ME1 would be a good thing from that point of view

I wouldn't like it if some classes are significantly more difficult to play than others, though.

I like how they've handled squad powers up till now. Different squad mates are better at different types of missions and complement some classes of Shepard better than others. This all adds to the tactical aspects of choosing your squad for a particular mission as well as the replay value when you play a new class of Shepard.

[KotorEffect3]

[quote]Thrombin wrote...

I think the most important factor is that each class should present a distinctive play experience. Having every class able to take any weapon is a step away from that but, hopefully, other factors will kick in.

quote]


Seeing as the classes outside of the soldier class have limited weapon slots I am guessing and hoping the game will encourage you to bring along the weapons that are the most appropriate for whatever class you are playing and it's general playstyle.  If I am playing as a vanguard for example I am more likely to bring a shotgun with me than a sniper rifle.  But for the creative types you can find ways to mix and match weapons and make some weapons work with any class.

[Lumikki]

Phaedon wrote...

The main issue is not the balance between the classes, imo.

The main issue is that at least one class is:

          a. Not as interesting as the others.

          b. Doesn't have enough good powers.

Now, b. may sound like class balance, but it isn't. You don't need to balance the classes towards one another, you need to develop a class enough to be fun to play, unique, and not too challenging.

mm.. but even fun is relative to every persons. I don't like melee classes, so in general it doesn't matter how they are done in game, I allmost NEVER find them fun. So, my point been that to have fun you have to actually like the class you play. Also some people feels that fun is to be over power and if they lost that feel they complain.

How ever, OP asking should classes be balanced? Yes, but how to measure it would require player knows how to play every class perfectly and not the way player likes to play the class. Because not usign some talent or using too much some other could mean class becomes unbalance compared to others.

So, I think as long you can play the character well in all difficulty settings, it's fine class. classes exist to provide different kind of gameplay feeling, so every player can choose what's good and fun for them. Choose wrong and it's not fun. Also same class isn't allways fun in different games for everyone.

Example I did not find infiltrator fun in ME1, but it was fun in ME2 for me. Why? Mostly because shooting actually worked well.

Oh, I don't play for the challenge, I roleplay for the fun and story. So, when I choose difficulty for game, it's based what feels good for me, not to.......

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 juin 2011 - 11:24 .

[adlocutio]

ForumPortal wrote...

Every now and then, topics pop up about issues between the classes in ME1 and 2. Usually, pertaining to ME1, it's statements about how biotics are overpowered; with regards to ME2, biotics are considered underpowered compared to classes like the Soldier and Infiltrator. My question is: as long as it's possible to clear the game on Normal in one playthrough by a competent first-time player, does it matter? Should Bioware spend more time making sure every class is capable of an Insanity run? Or are there more important things they should be dealing with? And what about squadmates--should each squadmate be useful in the same amount of situations as another?

I'm curious to see discussion on the matter, because I think it's an interesting topic that deserves at least a bit of attention. Plus, it's better than arguing over Ashley's hair all day.  

Good topic.  I think gameplay balance across classes is seriously overrated, at least as it's done in current games.  You end up with all classes being equally neutered.  Same effects across the board, just with different power names, or you get rock paper scissors.

The beauty of the old tabletop roleplaying systems was that you were required to sacrifice something for your power, whatever that may be.  So thieves weren't great in combat.  Mages couldn't wear armor or swing a sword. Fighters didn't use magic. This led to different power curves and radically different abilities across classes. That, to me, was part of the fun.  It required strategy and tactics together.

The basic assumption by today's gaming companies, I infer, is that most people don't want to be challenged to understand how to play that way.  They want to simply pick up the controller and play.  That's fine if people do, but does every game have to play the same way?  Isn't diversity in entertainment a good thing?  The worst solution is to try to appeal to everyone.  My personal belief is that if a game is good enough, people will put forth the effort to understand how to play it. 

It also helps to print freaking manuals and have tutorials for newbs.  Perhaps pre-designed builds for ease of play.

[AlanC9]

adlocutio wrote...
The beauty of the old tabletop roleplaying systems was that you were required to sacrifice something for your power, whatever that may be.  So thieves weren't great in combat.  Mages couldn't wear armor or swing a sword. Fighters didn't use magic. This led to different power curves and radically different abilities across classes. That, to me, was part of the fun.  It required strategy and tactics together.

It also meant that some character classes were much less fun to play than others. There's a reason that this design approach died out in PnP as well as in CRPGs. It's actually a worse problem for a PnP game since you probably still need someone to play the thief even if playing the thief isn't any fun.

[Lumikki]

AlanC9 wrote...

adlocutio wrote...
The beauty of the old tabletop roleplaying systems was that you were required to sacrifice something for your power, whatever that may be.  So thieves weren't great in combat.  Mages couldn't wear armor or swing a sword. Fighters didn't use magic. This led to different power curves and radically different abilities across classes. That, to me, was part of the fun.  It required strategy and tactics together.

It also meant that some character classes were much less fun to play than others. There's a reason that this design approach died out in PnP as well as in CRPGs. It's actually a worse problem for a PnP game since you probably still need someone to play the thief even if playing the thief isn't any fun.

Also the completing others abilties as different class doesn't fit well in single player games, they are better in multiplayer games.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 juin 2011 - 11:47 .

[nitrog100]

I don't really see how Biotics were underpowered...I vastly preferred the ME2 approach to ME. Playing a biotic in the original was pretty unbearable for me. You're more in the action in 2.

[Repearized Miranda]

I don't think it'd be fair to have "player tailoring". note: I didn't say it was bad because I have games that have that kind of thing while having done so myself. So, yeah, I agree with adio, but I won't be rude and say: "turn down the difficulty." Adio, is right though. It seems like nowadays, every game has to be easy which I am saddened if this mindset is true. As someone else said, the difficulty settings are there for a reason and note Bioware (for ME) tells you what to expect; therefore, if you die in two seconds on Insanity, it's not their fault because they subtly tell you "Know how to play or you're screwed!"

Having said this, what is the percent of each difficulty setting (who plays on what setting) and if you've beat the game once, did you gradually or drastically increase it? I jumped from Casual to Insanity as it's just a matter of knowing what's coming and from where because it just happens more frequently. AAMOF, one of the tips on a loading screen says to look for patterns (ie: Harby's fireball and missile projectiles)

Each character is catered for a particular play-style; however, it's the difficulty that determines how one play-style. That is not to say that you can't play the same way on Insanity like you do Casual. You can "shoot and cover" on all the settings if you wish or not, but on Insanity, is highly advised!

There's this mindset that: Easy = boring where as extremely difficult = fun. That's a pretty fair generalization. Even some have said that Insanity is easy and want it magnified in ME3.

As far as squad mates, as much as it is who's suited for a mission, it's also who the player likes as squadmates. For me, it's obvious for one of them; however, that is not to say that I don't play with the others. I just have to adapt to how anbody not named Miranda plays.

I don't think every character should be on a level playing field because there may as well be only three choices and not seven (I don't remember the exact number)

Tutorials would be nice, but again, it'd be nice if newbs would learn the game, too.

Preset characters? I don't think that'd be a good thing because it'll be the same issue as with the character balance. My question is: how much should the games 'help' players before players realize that they should help themselves? Miranda is obviously my favorite squadmate, but if all my squadmates were like her?

[adlocutio]

Lumikki wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

adlocutio wrote...
The beauty of the old tabletop roleplaying systems was that you were required to sacrifice something for your power, whatever that may be.  So thieves weren't great in combat.  Mages couldn't wear armor or swing a sword. Fighters didn't use magic. This led to different power curves and radically different abilities across classes. That, to me, was part of the fun.  It required strategy and tactics together.

It also meant that some character classes were much less fun to play than others. There's a reason that this design approach died out in PnP as well as in CRPGs. It's actually a worse problem for a PnP game since you probably still need someone to play the thief even if playing the thief isn't any fun.

Also the completing others abilties as different class doesn't fit well in single player games, they are better in multiplayer games.

You've both mentioned flaws in one particular system.  There's no reason a thief can't be fun if it's designed that way.  And I'll point out that most recent party-based single player games require or at least benefit from using different characters to "complete" the PC's abilities. DA2's cross-class combos are prime examples.

In ME or ME2, you might argue that the adept or engineer is underpowered or not as much fun to play.  That isn't a problem with balance, just with how it's carried out.  If adepts or engineers could do really cool stuff, people wouldn't complain.  The little drone is kind of lame, though.

I would even argue that in the old PnP systems, if thieves weren't fun, it's because the DM was not doing his/her job.  As I said earlier, people seemed to have a hard time understanding the tradeoff of non-combat bonuses for combat penalties.  If you don't play up the bonuses, then the class sucks.  It wasn't a problem with design, just execution.

[Casper DM]

Interesting topic, I personally cannot play anything other than Vangaurd simply because my playstyle has become so reliant on its charge ability, kind of like one of those its not you its me type of deals where trying to balance other classes for me isn't going to work very well for others.

I have comleted the game on insanity with the Vanguard class twice, both of which were from characters imported from ME1 and I now play the game on hardcore as my standard difficulty. Reason for that it essentuates the abilities of each class/squad mate where you need to take out enemy shields/barriers/armour rather than encountering enemies you could immediately have your way with. Gave some of the other classes a go but they never really took off for me.

As for insanities difficulty in ME2, I found it less difficult as it was forcing you to recover your shields and/or before popping up again, dealing a massive amount of damage to an enemy throwing pretty much everything you have at them thereby killing them and taking cover again. This wasn't exactly hard rather time consuming as there was no real risk of dying unless you make a mistake or an enemy rushes you which I found the Vanguard class to be effective for dealing with.