You can read and reply to posts and download all mods without registering.
We're an independent and non-profit fan-site. Find out more about us here.
I always go back to starcraft 1 as a model for balance. It's one of those games that has a ton of replay value because it no longer matters (after many patches) which race you pick or which map you play on. Two evenly matched players always have a fun match against each other. Every strategy has a reasonably good counter-strategy and most everything gets used.SS2 needs to be balanced because players want to enjoy everything the game has to offer but at the same time they want to win. If winning is best achieved by investing all your CMs in standard weapons skills and just toting around an AR, then the player will never enjoy 95% of the other weapons and features. If they force themselves to use everything else in the game, it feels hollow, because they end up making non-intuitive choices to solve problems in the game world, just because "I haven't used that widget or weapon in a while". It's less immersive because the choice doesn't come naturally. A player should get to sample a good chunk of the game's features by necessity rather than by arbitrary choice.
The reason balancing the weapon classes is important is to make it feel like all the weapon classes are worthwhile. For example, if you choose the Energy weapons class, it should not feel like you wasted a lot of resources that could go into better weapons only to get a weapon good only against robots and some mechanical enemies.
Having all the weapons classes evenly balanced is certainly one approach to game design. But, it is not the only one and it is definitely not the approach that LGS took.
Yes, people new to the game will gravitate towards the class that will make them more powerful. Just like most players will not choose impossible on their first play through. So what?
The same cannot be said for nerfing some other class because you think more people should give the other classes a chance. Constructive, not destructive!
If that is the case, that LGS/IG didn't care about balance then why is the majority of the rest of the game reasonably balanced, such as vendor prices, inventory size, ammo counts lying about the levels, amount of health items, AI health levels, attack strength, damage resistances etc and so on and on. They created a game with a lot of great, engaging & balanced systems. the answer is, they did care about balance. Every game dev worth his salk does, otherwise you end up with a mess of a game! They simply made some mistakes.
If the one class is overpowered, you nerf the class. If it is not this class that is OP, but the others that are underpowered, then you bring them up to that level instead.
Every game dev worth his salk does
Well, that's the nub of it. How do you distinguish whether it is the case that one class is overpowered vs another class being underpowered? It is all a matter of interpretation and opinion.
distracted
No it isn't, it is a matter of arithmetic.
Why shouldn't you feel that way? Toughen up, Buttercup. Anyway, nerfing the standard weapons does not make your investment in the energy weapons any more useful. It just makes standard weapons less useful. Now the people who invest in standard weapons will have their feelings hurt as well. The horror!Because then there's no real choice in the weapon skills in the game, all other weapon classes become irrelevant and few people will bother touching them. Imbalance creates misconceptions like "PSI skills are useless on Impossible!" which means that a lot of the game is meaningfully closed off to many players simply because one part is much better than the others.Now I don't think the Energy weapons class is underpowered, but the classes are imbalanced. Can you tell me one good reason why the Standard weapons class should be better than the others? Why should the other weapon classes even exist then? As for challenges, people can make them on their own, they don't need imbalanced systems. There's melee weapons only playthroughs, pacifist playthroughs, pure PSI playthroughs etc. of System Shock 2.
ok, what's the proper equation to use?
You compare all the weapon stats (w/ math operators), consider the cybermodule cost, the damage type, everything relating to the weapons (it's all numbers) and compare them with those of the other weapon classes as well as AI health, AI attack damage, and so on. All must be in unison.If we decide to instead buff all the other weapon skills to that of the standard weapon class level, then we must also adjust everything else, otherwise we have a truly empowered player.
Because then there's no real choice in the weapon skills in the game, all other weapon classes become irrelevant and few people will bother touching them. Imbalance creates misconceptions like "PSI skills are useless on Impossible!" which means that a lot of the game is meaningfully closed off to many players simply because one part is much better than the others.Now I don't think the Energy weapons class is underpowered, but the classes are imbalanced. Can you tell me one good reason why the Standard weapons class should be better than the others? Why should the other weapon classes even exist then? As for challenges, people can make them on their own, they don't need imbalanced systems. There's melee weapons only playthroughs, pacifist playthroughs, pure PSI playthroughs etc. of System Shock 2.
A ridiculous argument on its face. I don't know how someone can be so illogical that they can't see that the devs made the standard weapons class an easier path on purpose. As to why the might have made that choice... How about they expected that people would gravitate to the standard weapons class on their first play through, but then would try other things when they replayed the game. You know, a deliberate decision to make the game more interesting for those who wanted to play the game more than once.
It's all manipulated mathematically & logically. SS2's systems were balanced using spreadsheets, and then expressed mathematically in code to make the systems come to life.
Well, you're right, determining the balance of systems involves degrees of both subjectivity and objectivity. However, the superiority of a weapon class & that of weapons in comparison to another can be determined by numbers alone.
Edit: well, the subjective balance to aim for is already set by the original devs and it is widely agreed that it is standard skill/rifle that is the discrepancy.
It is "widely agreed" by those that run this forum. Do you have any evidence that this agreement goes beyond that?
And that all comes before we even get into differing playing styles and preferences.
No, not really. How do you compare the energy class to heavy class? The heavy class needs ammo, which can be bought or found
It's a no-brainer for goodness sake, and is also supported by the numbers. The ammo is common, the damage output is high, the clip size generous, rate of fire swift etc. Enemies don't stand a chance. Again, to bring all other weapons up to this level would empower the player considerably, so the AI would need to be adjusted accordingly, along with just about everything else.
[...] but remember that they couldn't do everything they wanted to, as System Shock 2 was a rushed game and was released when LGS was about to shut down due to bankruptcy. In these situations, it's natural for the developers to make a few missteps, and the weapon classes are one of them I think.
This was all intentional.