Class balance discussion

[Mr1k3]

Since the topic of class balance was brought up via a poll on the news forums, I thought it might be interesting to further discuss the topic in a bit more detail since I am currently also looking into renovating aspects of my "more-classes" mod. I feel like some further discussion here will help the development for a proper class system for either a modded or base game setting.

I feel it is important to note that from the data so far shows that the commoner is the most popular class by a large margin, which is expected for several reasons that I will be getting into, but it still highlights a point that the entire system needs to be balanced in a way where the commoner lies in a completely neutral area, meaning that no other class should be a complete upgrade or downgrade compared to them. This core philosophy should be the foundation to the entire system in order to preserve a freedom of choice and remove any "metas" for sake of an authentic sandbox experience.

The preference of the commoner over the other classes is to be expected to a degree, as some people do not care for the system and that should be preserved as stated before, but currently it is being influenced by other aspects- first and foremost the inability to change classes through in-game means. Currently I am a little worried about further diluting the pool of classes with my mod due to an ever-increasing degree of option paralysis that is amplified even more so when you are unable to change your class though "legitimate means", and while a series of commands can be used to enable class changing, it is up to a server/players discretion to administer this command. The ability to change classes through in-game means was stated to be planned in an earlier devlog, but it is critical in a renovation to the system for this to be added alongside it. This system should be difficult enough to avoid constant or free class changing because that may bring exploits or more importantly develop a want/need to change class to another before you can harvest/do something, otherwise it would tarnish the sandbox theme, yet the system should not be impossibly difficult or grindy for the average player to achieve.

What should define a class? Classes as they currently stand are not that far off in statistics from the commoner, meaning they don't hold nearly as much influence on game play as I have them tuned in moreclasses. Should the system remain like this or should the system be tuned to be more influential on aspects of game play? I personally love the way the malefactor class plays and feels in moreclasses as it allows a completely different method of play over the commoner (a huge emphasis on stealth and getting in and out of combat without engaging an enemy), yet remains balanced in a way to not be straight up "better" than the normal play-style. Classes should also hold enough perks/downsides to be able to have their own individually unique play-style, and I consider the tailor as a good example of a class not deep enough to really be their own "class", as they stand they feel and play just like a commoner that can make clothes.

It's also important to note that the entire system must be balanced around not only these aspects, but both be viable in a multiplayer and co-op setting. Classes should have an area/areas of expertise/incompetence but these should not be tuned to a degree that would make the class either nearly-useless or the only option in those areas, otherwise it would have too large an impact on selection for each game mode.

Wrapping things up, these are some thoughts/philosophies I've developed over my time modifying this system. As usual balancing is the most important thing to consider here and the ultimate goal, and a system this deep requires multiple iterations and lots of testing in order to find a balanced area. Coming up with these classes and especially what downsides they should have is particularly difficult from my experience, but with enough work any class or idea can eventually make it to this goal.

As always I'd like to hear what other people think.

[Streetwind]

The problem with enabling class changes, even as a big project, is that some classes are better at certain phases of the game than others. In stock VS singleplayer, for instance, Malefactor is a great earlygame class that suffers in lategame, and Blackguard is a great lategame class that suffers in earlygame. So why not just start Malefactor in every world and then switch to Blackguard once you're settled in and stable?

With the class setup as it is in stock VS, allowing players to switch classes risks reducing the amount of player choice rather than increasing it, because there will be an optimal path from first spawn to lategame, and some, or perhaps even most, classes will simply not feature in that path at all.

And such a thing is nearly impossible to balance, because the only way to avoid optimal progression paths is to ensure all classes are equally viable in all stages of the game. And that greatly constrains what you can even do with classes. Things like foraging bonuses or hunger penalties are suddenly no longer valid class features because they directly impact game difficulty more during specific phases of the game than in others.

So in a way, locking the player into their choice allows for a greater variety of classes and playstyles to coexist, both in singleplayer and in multiplayer. And if one of the classes ends up too good or too weak (*cough*Clockmaker*cough*), then it's a matter of balancing that particular class, individually for itself, without having to worry about the implications of cross-class metagaming.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Streetwind

[Omega Haxors]

On 8/30/2021 at 1:45 AM, Streetwind said:

The problem with enabling class changes, even as a big project, is that some classes are better at certain phases of the game than others.

Sounds like a problem with the design of the classes more than anything.

[Streetwind]

41 minutes ago, Omega Haxors said:

Sounds like a problem with the design of the classes more than anything.

That's why I wrote the third and fourth paragraph in my post.

If you want to tackle the 'problem' with class design, then what happens is that you have to throw out the vast majority of potential ways to differentiate the classes. You're left with just a small subset of relatively neutral improvements, meaning you have very little room to make classes that feel and play noticably distinct.

It's not something broken being fixed - it's a difference in philosophy. Either approach offers something the other sacrifices. Both are equally valid in game design. And no matter which you'll go with, you'll always have players who'd rather see the other instead. That's fine, and entirely fair. But in the end, a game can only pick one.

[l33tmaan]

That sounds pretty awful. Classes should be so distinct from one another that it makes you want to restart the game as a new character to try it out.

[Omega Haxors]

This post inspired me to write this

 

[Omega Haxors]

I feel like classes should exist in a way which pushes you to play the game a different way.

Look at Hunter: He's the most popular non-commoner because he trades melee effectivity for ranging, which meaningfully impacts how you play.

Now look at Clockmaker; he's universally hated because he's just a faster and weaker commoner. Nothing special about him even though he's a very good class stat-wise.

I feel like too many existing classes just serve to scramble some stats around. Blackguard being faster at mining. Hunter being worse at extracting ore. They're not interesting and just serve to 'nerf' the class arbitrarily while not actually impacting the *way* you play the class. Sure it adds more complexity but it hardly adds any depth at all.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Omega Haxors

[Game Nerd]

The easy way to fix it would be to takeaway the negative effects of the classes and add to the commenor, as people don't want disadvantages

[Silent Shadow]

12 hours ago, Omega Haxors said:

Now look at Clockmaker; he's universally hated because he's just a faster and weaker commoner

I don't think people hate him because he is faster.

[Omega Haxors]

9 minutes ago, Silent Shadow said:

I don't think people hate him because he is faster.

The point is because he's boring. Why sacrifice melee effectiveness for a little bit of move speed and a bunch of irrelevant crap when you could just go commoner and skip all the BS. Your gameplay isn't going to change at all just because you hit a little weaker and run a little faster, so why bother?

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Omega Haxors

[Enns]

Class balance is a bit silly to think about when there isn't enough content for classes to even practice their specialty. I think completing core parts of the game that allow the idea of classes to shine might be the better way to go. I don't mean a basic recipe or a statistic change. That sort of balance will keep happening over time as the roadmap stuff comes into fruition anyway. I think we as players get caught up in fun ideas that we love, very specific ideas and not the bigger picture that would flesh out the game as a whole. I think we should start asking for more core type stuff that helps complete gameplay loops for various style of play. Then the details we love will all fall into place over time.