The "Just Don't Use It" Fallacy.

[cforce]

There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" Rather than continue to reply to it directly in threads where it crops up, I'm going to try to explain the problem once, here, and then just start linking to here when it comes up.

At the core of understanding why games need to be balanced is understanding the fun that comes out of challenge. If you imagine a spectrum of difficulty from "press this button, and you win" to "will never be possible for anyone, ever", you can map out a 'fun response' alongside it, like this:


Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating

The games that keep people playing the longest are the ones that oscillate back and forth in that Maximum Fun Zone: you need to have some periods of only Mild Challenge, with ramp-ups to extreme challenge, and so forth. Spending too much time in "Boring" or "Frustrating" leads players to leave the game.

I won't go into this in too much more detail, except to say that what I'm talking about here falls into the category of "generally accepted principles" in the game industry. If you really want to dig into the meat of the subject, I suggest reading material from Nicole Lazzarro, a respected game design consultant, found on her website here: http://www.xeodesign.com. Also, for a much prettier graphical representation of the "ideally fun game", check out slide 22 of her powerpoint presentation from AGC 2005: http://www.xeodesign.com/funmeter/xeodesign_agc_funmeters300n102805.ppt . I'll let her material speak for itself, and move on.

Now, where does balance come in? Well, the challenge varies based on whether or not you are using the more powerful items in the game. (Or, whether you have the best build, etc.) What this means is that there's some amount of distance between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" on the challenge scale. In an ideal case, it looks like this:


Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-------------<<<<Haves Zone>>>>-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------<<<Have Nots Zone>>>----------------

By scaling the difficulty level, the dev team can move *everyone* on the spectrum. But, if the picture starts looking like this:


Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-<<<<Haves Zone>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------<<<Have Nots Zone>>>----------------

...you could increase game difficulty to challange the "Haves", but you end up here:


Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-------------<<<<Haves Zone>>>>-------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------<<<Have Nots Zone>>>---

...and you've got a balance problem. You can target the game difficulty to keep either the Haves or Have Nots in the fun zone, but not both -- if you get one 'into the zone', you push the other out. If the gaps grow wide enough, you can even be in trouble on both ends:


Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-<<<<Haves Zone>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------<<<Have Nots Zone>>>---

When part of the population spends too much time out of the fun zone, they leave. How does this affect you? If you're one of the players who gets pushed out the boring end or the frustrating end, obviously it affects you! The game is tuned for "not you", and it isn't fun anymore! However, even if you're *not* one of the players that gets pushed out, it increases player attrition. Fewer players means harder grouping, and less development budget. So, generally speaking, what's bad for some players is still bad for the whole community, in the long run.

"Game Balance", at its core, is just a shorthand for saying "we need to narrow the gap between the Haves and the Have Nots so that *neither* is falling of the end of the fun curve", which makes things better for everyone.

Can players self-regulate to maximize thier fun? On a case-by-case basis, yes: Permadeath is a great example of this. However, this is the exception rather than the rule -- in general, most people won't do this, so there's still a "balance problem" for the bulk of the player base.

Hopefully this gives people a little bit of a better idea of why "just don't use it" isn't a viable solution to balance problems. (I won't even bother getting into why, "...and don't group with anyone who does" doesn't work -- simply imagine trying to fill a LFM with 6 or 7 different exclusions listed, and you'll understand why such an approach is impossible.) If you've read this, and still think "just don't use it" fixes the problem... well, at least maybe I'll get some positive reputation ;).

[quintuss]

i think the f2p store may help to bring the "Have nots" a little closer to the "Haves" (Better but not top notch gear,maybe 32pt chars, etc.)... in exchange for real world coin of course....

[Guildmaster_Kadish]

An interesting post C-force, but I think you need to add repetition into the equation as well.

The first time one does a quest it will often be much harder, not knowing what to expect and not knowing how to prepare appropriately, makes it so. The more one does a quest the easier it becomes, even on different difficulties. I believe repetition of quests, more than the gear the "haves" vs the "have nots", leads to quests becoming boring and people losing interest in the game. I know some who get bored very fast, two to three times in a quest and that is it, while others will ransack quests or areas every week (which is generally done for a specific goal of getting some specified loot, either to sell or to use). Generally, once that goal is accomplished, boredom sets in as well.

People enjoy the challenge the first time through a quest, because it is new and different. They may do the quest an additional one to two times for the favor (which may give them a reward at the end). But if there is no reward in running the quest (favor, special loot, high income), then the quest tends to never be run again. I do not think this is totally due to a lack of difficulty, nor to the difficulty of it being too hard, simply if there is nothing to gain, repetition of that quest makes it boring.

The only way to remedy this for all is to come out with content much more frequently, and hopefully this new "model" (F2P) will help Turbine do just that.

Another thing that would help some would be to add to the loot tables something that makes it worthwhile to grind (repeat) the high level quests to get special items. This would keep some peoples interest, but not all. At least it would lengthen the time before people would get bored.

Anyway, there are a lot of things that are easy for me to solo in the game, and quite a few that are difficult, but I am bored of both of them because of the repetition, not the scaling difficulty.

[Samadhi]

i think the f2p store may help to bring the "Have nots" a little closer to the "Haves" (Better but not top notch gear,maybe 32pt chars, etc.)... in exchange for real world coin of course....

If I'm a casual player, though, do I care enough about the game to spend real world cash to "catch up?" Prolly not.

What if I'm a hardcore player with the money - for this player it is a nonissue to blow some cash on mneumonics just to make the quest quicker.

This would spread his curve, not shrink it.

[Gornn]

Alright, let me put it in perspective.

If you had to make this choice, what would you pick:

Go free to play/create the store/DDO:EU initiative or close DDO because it doesn't make enough money

What is your choice there?

You may say that this wasn't the choice they had to make but...games are produced to make money, for no other rreason. They are to generate revenue. If the revenue being produced doesn't meet expectations then why would investments continue to be made in the product?

I have real life experience with this.

I worked in a comic book store when I was a kid. The comic book store was great and in a great location. It didn't make a lot of money but it was fun. Rent was expensive.

The store moved to a more out of the way location where the rent was much cheaper but obviously wasn't nearly as prominent.

The store closed about 6 months later.

I once asked the owner why he'd moved from that great location because surely the other was better for business. He said if they didn't move, the store would have just closed instead.

Turbine is piloting this F2P model so they are going to give it a genuine test to see how the model can be applied to future games. So they're going to give it at least a year.

If the EU initiative gives me even 1 more month with my friends in this game, I'll take it.

I'll take the store, and the influx of F2P players, and everything that comes with it because the only thing you never get back is time. So I am cheering th success of EU and all that comes with it.

Because those last 6 months at that comic store were some of my best memories from my youth. And if EU gives me that extra time in DDO I wouldn't have gotten otherwise...I'll take it.

[Zenako]

Well one way to help broaden the range of challenges available in the game is to modify some of the proposed changes a bit.

The Store is here to stay, and you can self impose limits on that, much like Perma death players do for other things in the game. One can choose to run without using the store to access any gameplay affecting item whlie questing. (It would still be used to change hair colors, buy character slots, etc.)

The second main change - dungeon scaling, has not feature to toggle so there is no choice at present. Right now it scales the quests based on party size alone with some adjustment for normal, hard or elite. Unfortunately, that also means that you can no longer adjust the challenge effectively by trying to shortman quests, since the dungeon self nerfs when you do.

One way to handle that, would be to scale Normal settings as they propose. Remove any scaling from Elite (maintaining current challenge settings) and split the difference with Hard, putting in a lessened scaling effect. This broadens the spectrum a bit with a lot of overlap and allows the haves to continue to challenge themselves by running elite runs with fewer players if they want a greater challenge for completion.

[Angelus_dead]

There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" Rather than continue to reply to it directly in threads where it crops up
Yeah, it's pretty tricky to respond to such a foolish assertion...


Can players self-regulate to maximize thier fun? On a case-by-case basis, yes: Permadeath is a great example of this. However, this is the exception rather than the rule -- in general, most people won't do this, so there's still a "balance problem" for the bulk of the player base.
That there is a variation of the famous Oberoni fallacy of RPG design: "The fact that some people can work around a game design flaw doesn't mean the design isn't flawed"

[Leyoni]

There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" Rather than continue to reply to it directly in threads where it crops up, I'm going to try to explain the problem once, here, and then just start linking to here when it comes up.

Very nice presentation but you fail to address the argument -- If X is unbalancing just do not use it.

What you are discussing is a corporate level decision making model that applies to Turbine and its developers. As players we are completely limited by the product. We can be "Haves" and make every quest trivial. We can be "Have Nots" and make every quest extremely difficult or even impossible.

Or, we can choose to be something in between.

The onus for game design and balance lies on Turbine and its developers. The decisions on individual use of every optimal item and build rest on us as individuals.

Therefore, the argument that "if X is unbalancing just do not use it" remains completely valid. Moreso given your excellent explanation. If you, individually, desire to keep in the "maximum fun zone" then keep your characters balanced between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". I'd call those the "Have Somes" -- the characters that have some of the things that make them above the "Have Nots" but below the "Haves".

In any iteration of your model the "Have Somes" will remain in the "maximum fun zone".

[Angelus_dead]

The Store is here to stay, and you can self impose limits on that, much like Perma death players do for other things in the game. One can choose to run without using the store to access any gameplay affecting item whlie questing.
You can make that choice for yourself, sure.

But how are you going to also make that choice on all the other 5 or 11 members in your group? How are you going to enforce it not only while they're partied with you, but also before they joined?

And even assuming you can somehow restrict the behavior of your group like that, how are you also going to restrict every other player on every server to follow that rule? Because if you don't, then the content challenges will be balanced against characters who have more resources or advantages than you do, so that a boss who is difficult for them will be nigh-impossible for you.

For a specific example of the problem, look at monk-splash AC. Currently a ran15/monk1 is the preeminent tank against Suulomades or other strong monsters. Preexisting characters who were already 16, or who had low wisdom or were non-lawful simply can't obtain that combination of AC and DPS. Many players didn't enjoy that kind of game-design change, but what can they do about it? Excluding monk-splashes from your group is difficult, and it would mean nerfing your ability to beat elite VOD.

[Angelus_dead]

Therefore, the argument that "if X is unbalancing just do not use it" remains completely valid.
Do you have any explanation of how it could be valid?

[Leyoni]

Do you have any explanation of how it could be valid?

Yes, as in my post directly above your comment.

If the OP's point is "maximum fun" then that is achieved by being somewhere between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". And that is achieved by NOT having or NOT using things that are "unbalancing".

It is an individual person's way of staying in the "maximum fun zone".

The issues that you and OP are addressing are Turbine design staff and Turbine design philosophy issues. I completely agree with your earlier point that the "fact that some people can work around a game design flaw doesn't mean the design isn't flawed".

But that is not a player issue. The most that an individual player can do is to choose not to exploit the flaw.

If Turbine does not recognize the flaw -- and face it, some of the things that people have identified as game imbalancing are regarded by Turbine as working as intended -- then the only solution remaining to us as players is to choose not to use X, whatever X represents.

That could be Ranger/Monk. That could be dual-wielded mineral or radiance weapons. That could be a host of things -- all depending on what the individual player feels is unbalancing.

For me it was Halfling Ranger/Monks. I chose to build a Ranger/Rogue/Monk (thus diluting some of the build) and to make it Warforged (thus giving up some AC perks and dragonmarks). Cratesmasher is definitely not uber. But, he is quite capable on most quests in spite of not being completely in the "Haves" camp.

[Angelus_dead]

Here is a short list of a few key places this fallacious reasoning has been used in DDO's life. All of the following game-design problems have been defended with a cry of "Just don't use it if you don't like it"


Mod 4-7: Casters can solo Reaver, while warriors can only contribute as puzzle-solvers or cheerleaders.

Mod 5: Metamagic aoe spells melt any room of top-level mobs without needing to slow down.

Mod 7: Monk1 gives you more AC while opening the offhand for TWF.

Mod 1-8: Wounding Puncturing rapiers kill any non-boss living mob with no regard for his hp or DR.

Mod 3: An arcane caster with a stack of Heal scrolls has more HPS than a cleric using spellpoints.

Mod 3: Heavy Fort renders rogue-based mobs harmless and PC-directed crits extinct.

Mod 5: Black Abbot is unkillable without exploitive puzzle techniques.

Mod 1: Vorpal Scimitars kill on a 15-20, or 8-20 on your 4th swing.


If you think about what it would take for a player to enforce "Just don't use it" against all of those problems, the fallacy of that argument should be apparent.

[Borror0]

Great post cforce.

Another point to note is that game developers typically use difficulty levels with greater rewards to balance the challenge as well. That is, they implement multiple difficulty setting where the loot gained in the hardest is better (or where the drop rates are higher) than the one in the easiest.

Thus, the "haves" play an harder game for better/more loot while the "have-nots" play an easier game with less loot.

[Leyoni]

Excluding monk-splashes from your group is difficult, and it would mean nerfing your ability to beat elite VOD.

IMO that is alright.

Remember OP's initial model and realize that in good game design there is a place for some content that is extremely difficult to complete -- just as there is a place for some content that is extemely easy to complete.

Korthos is easy button stuff. I can run Korthos thru elite without ever needing to go beyond L1. I can solo it on most of the characters.

It is alright because for some it will be challenging -- at least at first.

And, it is equally alright that I can't complete VOD on elite. It is at the top of the quest chain and on elite setting. It should be close to impossible to beat -- something that is a non-trivial challenge and leaves me with a "I get to brag about it" feeling.

[Borror0]

Go free to play/create the store/DDO:EU initiative or close DDO because it doesn't make enough money

What is your choice there?
There is no indication there is such a dichotomy.

[Angelus_dead]

Yes, as in my post directly above your comment.
Yeah, I expected that reply.

In lieu of an elaborate dissection, I'll ask a tiny question: What do you think the word "just" means?

[Phidius]

IMO that is alright.

Remember OP's initial model and realize that in good game design there is a place for some content that is extremely difficult to complete -- just as there is a place for some content that is extemely easy to complete.

Korthos is easy button stuff. I can run Korthos thru elite without ever needing to go beyond L1. I can solo it on most of the characters.

It is alright because for some it will be challenging -- at least at first.

And, it is equally alright that I can't complete VOD on elite. It is at the top of the quest chain and on elite setting. It should be close to impossible to beat -- something that is a non-trivial challenge and leaves me with a "I get to brag about it" feeling.

/agreed

I grind to become as uber as I can... I want to trivialize content, not be challenged. When I want to be challenged, I roll up a new toon and start all over again.

[Feyt]

great post cforce!

[Zenako]

My points were based on the fact that using the store takes a proactive effort to do so. Turbine has provided the opportunity to access this change, this new feature, but nothing (so far) requires you to do so.

The change to Dungeon scaling involves no choice. It is IMPOSED on you with no options, other than making sure you have a full group in the party to get back to the current experience.

A choice, an on/off toggle would be nice for that feature, or lacking that, something which enables us to retain a sembalance of the challenges we can not put ourselves into. No longer will you be able to try to solo something that gives a full party a challenge, since that challenge will automatically be reduced by the game to reflect you are a solo character in the quest.

Putting Scaling (normal), Semi-scaling (hard) and no Scaling (Elite) into effect restores some of the range of challenge for players on the high end (that will be getting taken away otherwise) while at the same time expanding the challenge range at the lower end to accomodate those who enjoy or need less of a challenge.

[Thanimal]

The fact that cforce only has a "neutral" reputation as of this moment proves that the favor system doesn't work yet.

(Yeah, he's my friend, guildmate, and business partner. But my above statement is still correct. :))

[Impaqt]

You can make that choice for yourself, sure.

But how are you going to also make that choice on all the other 5 or 11 members in your group? How are you going to enforce it not only while they're partied with you, but also before they joined?

And even assuming you can somehow restrict the behavior of your group like that, how are you also going to restrict every other player on every server to follow that rule? Because if you don't, then the content challenges will be balanced against characters who have more resources or advantages than you do, so that a boss who is difficult for them will be nigh-impossible for you.

For a specific example of the problem, look at monk-splash AC. Currently a ran15/monk1 is the preeminent tank against Suulomades or other strong monsters. Preexisting characters who were already 16, or who had low wisdom or were non-lawful simply can't obtain that combination of AC and DPS. Many players didn't enjoy that kind of game-design change, but what can they do about it? Excluding monk-splashes from your group is difficult, and it would mean nerfing your ability to beat elite VOD.


I beat VoD on a regular basis without a Monk splash "Tanking". My S&B Tank does just fine against him as do the many Warforged aggro magnets. The concept of "One way to beat X" is the primary reason people feel theres no challenge in the game. Expand your horizons, try different ways to complete your objectives.

[Angelus_dead]

There is no indication there is such a dichotomy.
There's a lot of evidence for it.

For more than a year it's been pretty obvious that that DDO has been a failing product. To continue on like they were doing would've meant only a slow fade-out (a result midway between the fates of AC and AC2). They had to change something to get a new chance for viability, and it had to be something big.

I've previously said "You only get one chance to make a first impression". But that's not universally applicable- when a subscription class-A game goes free-to-play, it does get a new introduction into the media and the marketplace.

Now:
You might respond and say that the subscription-only business model can't be inherently flawed, because after all several other games survive that way. That's true: DDO's failures were caused by multiple specific mistakes in game design, implementation, and marketing. One might think that correcting those flaws would be enough to put the game back on the right path. But unfortunately it's too late for that. They don't have the resources to hope for a long, slow recovery based on consistently improved performance. They need to try something that could get real results in under 6 months, and only a publicity splash can provide that. Changing to f2p creates that kind of publicity, but fixing 15 different deep design flaws does not.

Just think of a few of the flaws you're aware of in DDO, and imagine what it would be like trying to get a game-industry reporter to understand them, not to mention convince him that the developers have changed something so that it won't be a problem anymore. For examples, Black Abbot, Monk AC, Bow DPS, or Sunder: how could it be possible to explain those things so that an outsider can understand?

[Leyoni]

Here is a short list of a few key places this fallacious reasoning has been used in DDO's life. All of the following game-design problems have been defended with a cry of "Just don't use it if you don't like it"


Mod 4-7: Casters can solo Reaver, while warriors can only contribute as puzzle-solvers or cheerleaders.

Mod 5: Metamagic aoe spells melt any room of top-level mobs without needing to slow down.

Mod 7: Monk1 gives you more AC while opening the offhand for TWF.

Mod 1-8: Wounding Puncturing rapiers kill any non-boss living mob with no regard for his hp or DR.

Mod 3: An arcane caster with a stack of Heal scrolls has more HPS than a cleric using spellpoints.

Mod 3: Heavy Fort renders rogue-based mobs harmless and PC-directed crits extinct.

Mod 5: Black Abbot is unkillable without exploitive puzzle techniques.

Mod 1: Vorpal Scimitars kill on a 15-20, or 8-20 on your 4th swing.


If you think about what it would take for a player to enforce "Just don't use it" against all of those problems, the fallacy of that argument should be apparent.

Oh, just nonsense!

In the real world there are jobs that some people can do that others can't, that are easier if you have the tool designed for the task instead of the tool in your tool box, or where you need to understand how the system works in order to know how to solve the problem at hand.

There is no reason that in a fantasy world that these same things cannot or should not apply.

So what if there is content that casters solo that warriors don't? I routinely solo WW with L1 warriors and never do so with L1 casters. Why, because it is easy with warriors and darned near impossible with casters -- at least for me.

So what if area of effect spells melt off top-level mobs? The oddest thing to me when I first started playing DDO was seeing that fireball didn't affect party members. But, it is a game design choice and I don't find it odd any more. So what if this is more effective than sending in the melees to do the job? In real life we are always looking for the best solutions to problems. In the military we often choose black-ops over conventional forces -- and for a reason. Again, why shouldn't a fantasy game mirror real life?

So what if an arcane with heal scrolls has more HPS than a cleric with mana? This is an apples-to-oranges comparison and I wonder what the real truth is if the cleric has the stack of heal scrolls. But, that aside, I've never seen a LFM up "seeking arcane with heal scrolls, cleric will do if we have to take them."

So what if WoP or vorpal or some other weapon combo kills things efficiently? Why do you care? Does it affect you? Does it make you lose some self-worth? Does it cost you the bragging rights for most kills? When the weapon effects are not working as intended they get modified in later releases. So much of your argument in this area is already overcome by events as the changes have already been made.

So what if mobs have heavy fort? Player characters have it. Why wouldn't the bad guys?

Lastly, why "enforce" a decision to not use X -- whatever X represents? It is a personal choice. Like any personal choice it isn't our responsibility to enforce it in others. It is only our duty to enforce it in ourself.

[cforce]

A couple of quick points:

(1) A number of folks seem to be replying about F2P and eStore, which I never talked about. (Gornn, I'm looking at you. Interesting commentary, but off-topic. There are 20 other threads to discuss F2P/eStore.)


What you are discussing is a corporate level decision making model that applies to Turbine and its developers. As players we are completely limited by the product. We can be "Haves" and make every quest trivial. We can be "Have Nots" and make every quest extremely difficult or even impossible.

Or, we can choose to be something in between.

(2) Leyoni, one of your assumptions here isn't valid: that a "Have Not" can simply choose to be a "Have". If it was a matter of simple choice, you would find that almost everyone would be a "Have", and, voila, we have balance!

For example, as a 3-5 hour/week player, there's pretty much no way I can choose to have all of the best Raid Loot in the game. Nor can I choose to have +2 tomes, etc.

The more subtle issue, on the flip side, is that intentionally not using something that they have access to *also* spoils the fun for a lot of players, so a "Have" cannot necessarily start having fun when they're in 'Boring' land by adding restrictions. (Some can -- and they play Permadeath. But intentionally adding restrictions isn't fun for many players.)

I won't re-map out the conclusions that follow from that change in assumptions, because I'd just be re-stating the original post -- hopefully you see where I'm going here.

[Angelus_dead]

I beat VoD on a regular basis without a Monk splash "Tanking". My S&B Tank does just fine against him as do the many Warforged aggro magnets. The concept of "One way to beat X" is the primary reason people feel theres no challenge in the game. Expand your horizons, try different ways to complete your objectives.
None of those statements are a salient response to my post.

The word "nerfed" doesn't mean "can't beat". But to think elite VOD is the same kind of gameplay with and without an 88 AC ranger is laughable.

[Angelus_dead]

In the real world there are jobs that some people can do that others can't, that are easier if you have the tool designed for the task instead of the tool in your tool box, or where you need to understand how the system works in order to know how to solve the problem at hand.

There is no reason that in a fantasy world that these same things cannot or should not apply.
Verisimilitude to a certain vision of a fantasy world is not the only consideration. Game designers are locked in a constant struggle between verisimilitude and balance.

In terms of fantasy world logic, it makes perfect sense that a pure-class wizard or cleric could far outclass every other character by level 16. They're twisting the laws of reality and invoking the touch of gods, so it makes total sense for them to be the most powerful. But for game balance that cannot be allowed.

By definition, a level 16 rogue should have comparable effectiveness to a level 16 wizard, even though one of them channels extra-dimensional dominance with the power of his mind, and one of them pokes with a knife pretty well. If the game designers didn't want those separate kinds of characters to function well in a team, they shouldn't have allowed them both to achieve a designation as "level 16".

[Impaqt]

(2) Leyoni, one of your assumptions here isn't valid: that a "Have Not" can simply choose to be a "Have". If it was a matter of simple choice, you would find that almost everyone would be a "Have", and, voila, we have balance!

For example, as a 3-5 hour/week player, there's pretty much no way I can choose to have all of the best Raid Loot in the game. Nor can I choose to have +2 tomes, etc.

I disagree. WHile some raid loot is difficult to obtain, its commonly accepted that Shroud craftables are the best raid loot in the game. There are ways to obtain every ingredient you need except the power shards outside of the shroud.. Outside of the game even.... +2 tomes also follow this pattern. and if you think people dont already explore these "Outside options" your kidding yourself.



The more subtle issue, on the flip side, is that intentionally not using something that they have access to *also* spoils the fun for a lot of players, so a "Have" cannot necessarily start having fun when they're in 'Boring' land by adding restrictions. (Some can -- and they play Permadeath. But intentionally adding restrictions isn't fun for many players.)

If you dont want to, or cant enforce personal restrictions in order to have fun with the game, then your not really that dedicated to changing your challenge. I bring up the same argument when permadeathers post about wanting their own server. If you cant trust yourself not to take shortcuts, whats the point? You OBVIOUSLY like the shortcuts.. People dont take shortcuts because they decrease their fun

.

I won't re-map out the conclusions that follow from that change in assumptions, because I'd just be re-stating the original post -- hopefully you see where I'm going here.

[cforce]

An interesting post C-force, but I think you need to add repetition into the equation as well.


It's certainly true that lack of content and repetition can kill a game, but that's kind of an independent factor. There are lots of other 'fun killers' too, but you generally have to try to avoid all of them! Here, I'm really just focusing on the one: poor game balance.

[Impaqt]

None of those statements are a salient response to my post.

The word "nerfed" doesn't mean "can't beat". But to think elite VOD is the same kind of gameplay with and without an 88 AC ranger is laughable.

Who said anything about the same kind of gameplay? Just because its a different path to the conclusion doesnt make it less fun. It doesnt mean I'm "Nerfed" because I choose to S&B Tank him or just have a Warforge beat the snot out of him with a Sorc repairing the bejeezus out of him....

[Leyoni]

(2) Leyoni, one of your assumptions here isn't valid: that a "Have Not" can simply choose to be a "Have". If it was a matter of simple choice, you would find that almost everyone would be a "Have", and, voila, we have balance!

No, I'm not making this mistake. I understand completely that to become a "Have" a player needs to play and obtain all of the things needed to reach that point.

But, a player does not need to be a "Have Not" either. The error in your presentation is that you only give two options. There are, in fact, several gradations between "Have Not" and "Have". Good game design will enable players to move along that line as they complete quests. At present time, except in cases where some item has been removed from the game, there is nothing that any "Have" has that a "Have Not" cannot get.

The only thing differentiating "Haves" from "Have Nots" is the effort to get what they need to have.

That means most players are actually in the "Have Some" category. I have 3 L16 characters and 2 are level capped. I clearly am among the "Have Somes". But, there is no quest that I've tried to participate in that my characters have failed to contribute in some what to overall success.

No, I don't run elite content on every top level raid in the game. I'm not that driven. If I were then I would do what is needed to obtain the gear to move from "Have Some" to "Have".

IMO Turbine has done a good job in continuing to build quests where the "Haves" haven't had everything. And, to the player's credits those who are "Haves" went thru the effort to get what was needed to stay in the "Haves" grouping.

But, all of it is the choice of individual players and, thus far, DDO has bridged the spectrum from easy to difficult well enough.

[quintuss]

If I'm a casual player, though, do I care enough about the game to spend real world cash to "catch up?" Prolly not.

What if I'm a hardcore player with the money - for this player it is a nonissue to blow some cash on mneumonics just to make the quest quicker.

This would spread his curve, not shrink it.

Most of the purchasable weapons and other items will just not be interesting for the aspiring powergamer.
32pt Char or Drow unlocks are also a nonissue for powergamers.

At least if i were in charge of planing this shop, it would contain only the questpacks, medium gear and cosmetic items.
The cosmetic items would be interesting for everyone, the rest just for the "Have nots".

[Angelus_dead]

There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!"
It's interesting to consider how that fallacy appears in non-gameplay contexts, such as politics and law.

* You think 55 should be the speed limit? Don't drive faster than that!
* You think taxes should be higher? Mail cash to the government!
* You think drugs (or guns) are destructive? Don't buy them!
* You think abortion is evil? Don't get an abortion!

Obviously, the concerns of the people on one side of any of those topics cannot be assuaged by suggesting they personally restraint themselves. Their desires can only be satisfied if everyone's behavior is restricted. Some changes just don't work unless they're universally applied.

[cforce]

I disagree. WHile some raid loot is difficult to obtain, its commonly accepted that Shroud craftables are the best raid loot in the game. There are ways to obtain every ingredient you need except the power shards outside of the shroud.. Outside of the game even.... +2 tomes also follow this pattern. and if you think people dont already explore these "Outside options" your kidding yourself.

A fair point. Let me amend what I said to "as someone with limited time in-game and with limited (read: zero) budget to invest in things available through other "services", simply choosing to be more powerful isn't an option.


If you dont want to, or cant enforce personal restrictions in order to have fun with the game, then your not really that dedicated to changing your challenge. I bring up the same argument when permadeathers post about wanting their own server. If you cant trust yourself not to take shortcuts, whats the point? You OBVIOUSLY like the shortcuts.. People dont take shortcuts because they decrease their fun

I think you missed the subtlety of my point, Impaqt. Many people have the self-control to successfully execute self-imposed restrictions, but find that the *act of self-imposing a restriction* isn't fun, and as such, they've defeated the purpose of what they were trying to do. You can have self-control to do something, but no-one that I know of can "will themselves to enjoy" something, if it's not fundamentally a fun activity for them.

[Angelus_dead]

Who said anything about the same kind of gameplay?
Cforce did, and then I did too. And then you replied, which means that your statements would only make sense if they were relevant to that position.


It doesnt mean I'm "Nerfed" because I choose to S&B Tank him
1. Pushing it onto what some individual "chooses" is changing the subject.
2. An S&B tank is nerfed against Suulomades (and most other mobs)

[Impaqt]

Cforce did, and then I did too. And then you replied, which means that your statements would only make sense if they were relevant to that position.


1. Pushing it onto what some individual "chooses" is changing the subject.
2. An S&B tank is nerfed against Suulomades (and most other mobs)

In the context you used it in, No, I dont. Please explain.

[cforce]

That means most players are actually in the "Have Some" category.


Heh -- I'm sorry you took my argument to imply that I thought there were exactly two types of player power levels in the game. I certainly don't think that the simple text diagram I drew is a statistically accurate representation of the player base!

However, all of the points I made are equally valid when you consider the 'real' situation with a continuum of players between the endpoints. The larger the "spread" of the spectrum, the greater the risk that a fraction of it starts to fall off of one end or the other. Good game balance contracts the endpoints of what is most likely a normal distribution; poor game balance expands it. When you're one of the players falling out of the zone, it's very bad; when you're one of the players who is in the zone, you'll still be impacted by player attrition if large portions of the player base are outside of it.

So, I guess I'll need you to be more specific: what of my original arguments do you disagree with based on a contimuum of player power? I'm not really following your counterargument.

[Leyoni]

It's interesting to consider how that fallacy appears in non-gameplay contexts, such as politics and law.

* You think 55 should be the speed limit? Don't drive faster than that!
* You think taxes should be higher? Mail cash to the government!
* You think drugs (or guns) are destructive? Don't buy them!
* You think abortion is evil? Don't get an abortion!

Obviously, the concerns of the people on one side of any of those topics cannot be assuaged by suggesting they personally restraint themselves. Their desires can only be satisfied if everyone's behavior is restricted. Some changes just don't work unless they're universally applied.

True if you are a socialist or a fascist. If you believe in individual rights and freedoms then it is essential to believe that self-determination based on individual choice is paramount. What is more, there are many examples of people who do exactly as you've posted -- don't exceed the speed limits, don't buy drugs or guns, don't get abortions when pregnant (or don't become pregnant to begin with). The only one I've never seen anyone do is to just mail in money to the government, mostly because most people I know think government should be smaller and taxes less. :D

In a socialist or fascist world everyone and everything is controlled. In a free world it is not.

People do not need to be controlled in DDO. It will not make things better if they are.

OP's post and the principles of good game design argue directly against controlling the players. Good game design leaves room for everyone from "Have Nots" to "Haves" and all those in between.

[quintuss]

I think f2p will bring in a lot of casual gamers and turbine has to take care that these players will have fun which means they have to be able to run every quest in game at least on normal at some point.

While it is impossible or at least very hard (to hard in this case anyways) to cater to both, the 2 hours a month player and the evil uber zerger who nearly lives in DDO, it is still possible to make the vast majority of players happy.

One part of the solution is the store. Let the real dedicated players grind for their "Sword of seven truths" and allow casual gamers to at least buy the "Sword of five truths" for coin. That way everybody has the gear to run higher level quests and the powergamers can run elite while others can only run on normal...

Yes there might be players who don't have a lot time to play and also are not able or not willing to spend cash to close the gap. But those players will most probably play for free and from turbine's perspective don't make any economical sense.

If turbine manages to keep the majority of players interested in the game there will definately some substantial growth and that directly translates into more money to spend on content development. The tricky part is, to get a good start.

[Leyoni]

So, I guess I'll need you to be more specific: what of my original arguments do you disagree with based on a contimuum of player power? I'm not really following your counterargument.

See my inital reply to your post. You present your information based on refuting the "just don't use it" argument. Your post does not do that. In fact, it fails entirely to address the argument and, if anything, only provides strong support for the validity of the argument.

I think you tried to post a fact based reason to debunk the "just don't use it" response that is found here in the forums. But, what you actually have demonstrated is:

1. There is a continuum of players from those that have nothing at all (just started) to those that have everything (ultimate power gamers).
2. That game design needs to accommodate all of these.
3. That game designs that fail to accommodate all of these must adapt or fail.

IMO there is nothing in your post that indicates DDO meets the third criteria. To the contrary, posts by others in support of the OP show that there is in fact a wide variety of challenges from easy to OMG! And, per your OP that is good.

This means that you not only fail to debunk the "just don't use it" argument but you also tend to support Turbine's design and development process.

[cforce]

I think you tried to post a fact based reason to debunk the "just don't use it" response that is found here in the forums. But, what you actually have demonstrated is:

1. There is a continuum of players from those that have nothing at all (just started) to those that have everything (ultimate power gamers).
2. That game design needs to accommodate all of these.
3. That game designs that fail to accommodate all of these must adapt or fail.

IMO there is nothing in your post that indicates DDO meets the third criteria.

Ah-ha! I see where we're missing each other. The reason that there is nothing in my post to indicate that DDO meets the third criteria is: I'm not trying to claim that!

What I am trying to claim, to follow your format, is:

1. There is a continuum of players from those that have nothing at all (just started) to those that have everything (ultimate power gamers).
2. That game design needs to accommodate all of these.
3. That game designs that fail to accommodate all of these must adapt or fail.
4. Players "just not using" things cannot save a game that is failing because of #3.

I'm not claiming (here, anyway) that there is a game balance problem in DDO. I'm just saying that, when someone *does* raise a balance problem (and they do so because their main concern is #3), "don't use it" isn't a valid counterpoint.

I think, generally speaking, folks who raise balance problems are doing so because they're worried about #3, *not* because they are worried about the impact to their direct player experience by using said item personally. (At the very least, I can say that whenever *I* do it, that's my motivation.)

[Leyoni]

Yes there might be players who don't have a lot time to play and also are not able or not willing to spend cash to close the gap.

Did you read any of the articles on DDO:EU that were posted to the forum? F2P typically entice less than 1% to pay for extras. Turbine is hoping for 7-12% with an average of $20 per player.

Initial response might beat the typical F2P by 700-1200% but that can't possibly continue long-term.

The real secret will be content. F2P players will not get access to every quest. After the initial free area(s) they will need to pay for content. Imagine paying for access to the Harbor, Marketplace, major house districts. And imagine not getting all of the quests but having to pay for them as well.

That is the real model that Turbine is introducing at some level. Explore all of Stormreach and its districts without being able to do most of the quests. This is why Turbine thinks it can beat the typical F2P.

All of this has nothing at all to do with the original thread.

[Leyoni]

Ah-ha! I see where we're missing each other. The reason that there is nothing in my post to indicate that DDO meets the third criteria is: I'm not trying to claim that!

What I am trying to claim, to follow your format, is:

1. There is a continuum of players from those that have nothing at all (just started) to those that have everything (ultimate power gamers).
2. That game design needs to accommodate all of these.
3. That game designs that fail to accommodate all of these must adapt or fail.
4. Players "just not using" things cannot save a game that is failing because of #3.

I'm not claiming (here, anyway) that there is a game balance problem in DDO. I'm just saying that, when someone *does* raise a balance problem (and they do so because their main concern is #3), "don't use it" isn't a valid counterpoint.

I think, generally speaking, folks who raise balance problems are doing so because they're worried about #3, *not* because they are worried about the impact to their direct player experience by using said item personally. (At the very least, I can say that whenever *I* do it, that's my motivation.)

There is no point in addressing the "just don't use it" response by players if you are not claiming that there is a game balance problem in DDO. If that claim were not at the heart of the OP then there would be no "just don't use it" replies coming from the gaming population.

I disagree that there is a game balance problem. That isn't to say that some things are not tilted one way or the other at the present time -- or have been tilted in the past. It is to say that DDO did not arrive full blown with every quirk worked out of it. I don't think any game ever arrives that way.

But, Turbine does take a look at things working as they intended as well as things working as they did not intend. And, as the game has matured adjustments have been made.

I think the game is seriously flawed because I can't use the same name as some other character. And, I know how to code so that I could. That doesn't mean Turbine has to do that.

Some players might think monk splashes or Tempest enhancements or WoP weapons cause a serious flaw. They may even know how to code to impliment their vision of solutions. That doesn't mean Turbine has to do that either.

Your post fails to prove that the game is not adapting and thus failing. And, contrary to your 4th point, the majority of players actually are "just not using" because the majority just don't have! But, more importantly, your 4th point only becomes valid if the game is failing -- a point you are not making. To quote you, "I'm not claiming (here, anyway) that there is a game balance problem in DDO."

For your OP to have any validity you must claim that there is a balance problem and then you must demonstrate that the game is failing as a result.

You have done neither.

[Angelus_dead]

There is no point in addressing the "just don't use it" response by players if you are not claiming that there is a game balance problem in DDO.
No, his post doesn't depend on alleging an existing imbalance in DDO. In fact, the topic doesn't necessarily even have to be about DDO at all. It could be about WOW, or TF2, or baseball, or even federal banking regulations.

The point is that if someone complains that a certain rule will have indirect negative effects on him, exhorting him to personally restrain from using it does not address his perceived problem.

Here's an example from the USA at the beginning of this year: junk mortgages. Personally restraining yourself from applying for a mortgage you can't afford will keep you out of bankruptcy, but it won't stop you from losing income due to an economic slowdown triggered by millions of people who did go bankrupt.

[quintuss]

Did you read any of the articles on DDO:EU that were posted to the forum? F2P typically entice less than 1% to pay for extras. Turbine is hoping for 7-12% with an average of $20 per player.

Initial response might beat the typical F2P by 700-1200% but that can't possibly continue long-term.

The real secret will be content. F2P players will not get access to every quest. After the initial free area(s) they will need to pay for content. Imagine paying for access to the Harbor, Marketplace, major house districts. And imagine not getting all of the quests but having to pay for them as well.

That is the real model that Turbine is introducing at some level. Explore all of Stormreach and its districts without being able to do most of the quests. This is why Turbine thinks it can beat the typical F2P.

All of this has nothing at all to do with the original thread.

Yes, i did read through most of the stuff and indeed, the important thing for the survival of ddo will be new content on a regular basis.

I just think the goal for any MMO developer will have to be to keep the majority of players between those two extremes (Haves and Have nots) happy. It's normal, that those players on the fringe of the spectrum won't be the most happy ones.

The figures on page 22 of the ppt document linked by the OP are about mainaining fun in a gaming session and the alternation between tension/challenge and relaxing/easy gameplay is just something that has to be incorporated in the design of every quest.

The real trouble starts, when you set yourself the task to make every quest so that every player gravitates around the tension median which would be optimal. Luckily that is not really necessary in the case of DDO since there can be a lot of different quests with a lot of different levels of difficulty. If you make the rewards for really hard quests slightly better than the ones for easy quests, or create timesinks where hardcore players can grind for the top notch stuff, they will be happy, because they got challenging quests and are being rewarded for mastering it.
The shop provides means to make the task easier, because it gives players with less time the opportunity to close the gap beween them and the powergamers, thus making the spectrum turbine needs to do quests for a little smaller.

As of now there really are some issues that need fixing like shroud loot for example , but i don't think those are really gamebreaking because most quests are doable without wops or greensteel stuff and if turbine manages to create some really challenging (challenging, not broken like Cursed Ascension) quests once in a while even the powergamers will be happy.

So in short: If turbine manages to create enough content with varying difficultys, there will be no problem that would need solving via "just don't use that stuff".... which brings us back to the start of my post...why am i even writing this?... i think i need a coffee ;)

[Worker1179]

I invited my friend to DDO recently. Our schedules never really matched up so he spent most of his time in pugs. He said he felt ill-equipped alot of the time, as in, other guys in the group all have shiny glowing weapons. Their armor looks legit, and they are yelling about cure wands. He was a guy whos played PnP for 18 yrs and was into EQ and WoW, so he has a decent understanding of how things work. I can understand where he was coming from. I've often been in groups and felt like I must have rolled terrible on every loot roll ever when I look around. He and to a lesser extent, myself, I think are "have nots". How will the store affect you (anyone), if there is some kind of equalizer of some type where i can buy myself into some decent equipment where i can actually be of value to a group of "haves"? Doesn't this add more players to the pool of useful group members?

[cforce]

Again, just as a reminder, this thread isn't about the Store. Depending on items and prices available, items on the store could narrow the balance gap, or they could widen it. And we can't discuss any of the actual items here -- this isn't a Beta forum.

This thread is a reminder that "Don't Use It" is not a productive counterargument to, "<thing> represents a Balance Problem".

[Leyoni]

No, his post doesn't depend on alleging an existing imbalance in DDO. In fact, the topic doesn't necessarily even have to be about DDO at all. It could be about WOW, or TF2, or baseball, or even federal banking regulations.

It does because of where it is located withing the forum. If it were in off-topic chat it could be about one of those. But in gameplay it has to be about DDO by definition.

[ahpook]

...

In a socialist or fascist world everyone and everything is controlled. In a free world it is not.

You seem to be using "controlled" where it wasn't intended. I would go with restrictions or rules. The free society is full of restrictions and rules. Decide that you want to go with out Food ever again (without dying), Or that you can have what ever you want with out paying. Or that you want to survive if a car going 100 MPH hits you. I don't want to derail with philosophical discussion, just pointing out that your analogy is not very applicable to the discussion at hand.




People do not need to be controlled in DDO. It will not make things better if they are.

Again assuming you are using Controlled in place of what I would call restricted or limited, this is a silly statement. Characters must be limited. We have mana bars and HP bars as way of limiting them. If there are no limitations you have what Cforce refered to the Easy button in his original post.

[Leyoni]

This thread is a reminder that "Don't Use It" is not a productive counterargument to, "<thing> represents a Balance Problem".

A point that you have failed to demonstrate. :)

But, at this point we are just going in circles aren't we. You claim that the thread isn't about game imbalance but about a player-based response to claims of game imbalance.

Nothing can convince you that claims are meaningless -- requiring proof -- so that the player-based response is moot, neither appropriate nor inappropriate. If the claims are true then that must be shown to be the case. Efforts thus far only illustrate that Turbine has a robust system of varying difficulties and challenges and that it responds to unintended problems by addressing exploits.

At an individual, personal player level "don't use it" is not only an effective solution but, in the case of exploits, required by the EULA. At Turbine's level it doesn't apply.

Resolution of genuinely imbalancing situations rest with Turbine. Because they have historically responded by making changes when they deemed them appropriate AND because the game, like D&D itself, is constantly undergoing revision and the introduction of new material there is no demonstrable validity to claims of imbalance.

Thus, "just don't use it" is not only a productive (and EULA driven) answer. It is also the only one that we as individual players can apply if we honestly believe something is imbalanced.

Thus, I repeat my self and the impact of this is that you will repeat yourself. It keeps the wheels rolling but does nothing to further the conversation.

To further the conversation you must prove that DDO is broken due to imbalance thus making the "just don't use it" reply inappropriate. Since you cannot do this your conclusion is flawed since "just don't use it" is, in fact, the only answer to situations that you perceive as imbalanced and broken but cannot show to be.

It is a personal problem (thinking something is imbalanced) that requires a personal solution (just don't use it).

[cforce]

I'm sorry, I guess I'm at a loss, Leyoni. I'm really trying to reconcile the points you're making with what I'm trying to argue, but I really can't make any sense of it! Specifically:


There is no point in addressing the "just don't use it" response by players if you are not claiming that there is a game balance problem in DDO. If that claim were not at the heart of the OP then there would be no "just don't use it" replies coming from the gaming population.

I really can't understand your point here, at all. "If that claim were not at the heart of the OP then there would be no "just don't use it" replies coming from the gaming population?" There are none of those replies coming to my OP, because I didn't claim anything was out of balance in the OP. If I take this statement literally, you're saying you're correct in inferring something I didn't claim in my OP because my influence traveled backwards through time and caused people to post "just don't use it" replies in other threads. Clearly this wasn't your intent, but I can't begin to figure out what you meant, here.


I disagree that there is a game balance problem.
OK -- but who do you disagree with? I'm not claiming there is one -- I'm just trying to give some pointers to guide more effective dialogue when people *are* arguing about balance.



I think the game is seriously flawed because I can't use the same name as some other character. And, I know how to code so that I could. That doesn't mean Turbine has to do that.

Non-sequitur? What does this have to do with game balance?



Some players might think monk splashes or Tempest enhancements or WoP weapons cause a serious flaw. They may even know how to code to impliment their vision of solutions. That doesn't mean Turbine has to do that either.

Yes, this is a truism. In fact, Turbine doesn't have to do anything that would make the game better. I fail to see why Turbine's free will is relevant? What are you getting at?



Your post fails to prove that the game is not adapting and thus failing.


Er, yep. Never tried to prove it in the first place, in fact. I still feel like you're reading a different post than the one I made!


And, contrary to your 4th point, the majority of players actually are "just not using" because the majority just don't have!

OK, I actually understand your point here, but disagree. Most past balance discussions *have* revolved around things that most players have easy access to. (Tempest line, Wall of Fire, etc.) I would agree that, "almost no-one has that, so it doesn't represent a major problem" is a valid argument in specific cases, but I think those cases are less common.


But, more importantly, your 4th point only becomes valid if the game is failing -- a point you are not making. To quote you, "I'm not claiming (here, anyway) that there is a game balance problem in DDO."

Yep...


For your OP to have any validity you must claim that there is a balance problem and then you must demonstrate that the game is failing as a result.

Nope -- this conclusion doesn't follow. If I say, "If all Romans are liars, and all Romans are men, then all men are liars," my logic is wrong, even when all Romans *aren't* liars.

My argument is that, if a balance problem exists, "just don't use it" is not a logically sound counterpoint. A useful counterpoint would be something like the one you use above, "the use will be so rare that the impact will be minimal". "Just don't use it", on the other hand, would not address any *real* balance problem, and as such, isn't a useful counterpoint.

[cforce]

But, at this point we are just going in circles aren't we.

I can agree with this conclusion :).

But, let me make one last attempt at understanding your argument. Are you claiming that, since there never *has* been any real balance problem in DDO, "just don't use it" has historically been a valid response, simply because everyone who has ever argued something was imbalanced was wrong at a Turbine/game-wide level, and instead should only try to rectify the issue only in their personal experience?

[Leyoni]

You seem to be using "controlled" where it wasn't intended.

No, I'm using it exactly as it was intended.

The OP states that "just don't use it" isn't sufficient to address game imbalance. Ignore that he doesn't claim that there is a game imbalance. Ignore also that if there is no game imbalance then "just don't use it" has no meaning since there is nothing to apply it to.

The choices are "just don't use it" or "control". Control means removing the choice from players.

As the game now stands players can choose to do all of the things that have been suggested as imbalancing: solo Reaver with a caster, build monk splashes, use WoP or vorpals. If they feel that creates an imbalance then they are free to not do those things.

Control means removing those options.

Some of the things are flat out in error. For example, the problem with monk splashes is not the splash -- it is the use of stacking dodge items to bump AC thus allowing the synergy of TWF and monk WIS bonus an unintended (perhaps) advantage over S&B builds.

The solution is not in control but in freedom. By introducing more options those that are currently viewed as out of balance will be brought back into balance. New and improved armor and shields, particularly sets like we've seen on Korthos, is a better solution than nerfing monk splashes.

Is there a present tilt in favor of some things -- IMO yes. But, that does not mean we should impose control. It means we should let the game continue to develop and introduce new items that will change the direction of the tilt.

Doing this is what keeps the "Haves" in OP's post from growing bored with the game. And the prospect of achieving "Have" status is what keeps the rest of us from being frustrated.

OP made some good observations regarding game design. But his premise and his conclusion are flawed. As are those who have responded suggesting tighter restrictions on players.

[Leyoni]

I can agree with this conclusion :).

But, let me make one last attempt at understanding your argument. Are you claiming that, since there never *has* been any real balance problem in DDO, "just don't use it" has historically been a valid response, simply because everyone who has ever argued something was imbalanced was wrong at a Turbine/game-wide level, and instead should only try to rectify the issue only in their personal experience?

I am saying that when DDO has been out of balance due to exploit that Turbine has fixed the problem. And, I'm saying that because DDO is an evolving world -- just like D&D -- that temporary imbalances during a particular module do not mean a long-term imbalance for the game.

Thus, if the "DDO is imbalanced" argument relates to either of these issues then it is a pointless argument to which there is no other reply than "just don't use it."

If you can find an example of core-level design error that dooms the game to failure then I'll agree that "just don't use it" does not apply. However, no issue ever raised here in the forums fits that category. They all fit either the "exploit" or the "at this moment" type and to those types of balance issues the only workable solution is for us to take individual responsiblity.

In the case of exploits it means not using them per the EULA. In the case of temporary imbalances it is a matter of personal choice. If the imbalance bothers us then we ought not to use it. If it does not bother us then we should be free to use it. The entire issue will be resolved in the future as the game continues to grow.

[Leyoni]

If I say, "If all Romans are liars, and all Romans are men, then all men are liars," my logic is wrong, even when all Romans *aren't* liars.

Whether all Romans are liars or not, this fails because you need to state that all men are Romans for the logic to be valid. If you stated, "all Romans are liars and all men are Romans thus all men are liars" you would have a more concise argument.

However, your example leaves it clear that all men are not Romans thus your conclusion is false. It requires no effort to prove either of the premises.

Applicable to the discussion, you make the claim that "just don't use" isn't a legitimate reply to "the game is imbalanced". You don't show either of these to be legitimate. You directly claim the game is not imbalanced. You fail to see that the only reasoned response to the irrational and unsubstantiated claim that it is imbalanced is to tell people to take personal responsibility.

Your premises fail and therefore your conclusions fail.

[cforce]

If you can find an example of core-level design error that dooms the game to failure then I'll agree that "just don't use it" does not apply. However, no issue ever raised here in the forums fits that category. They all fit either the "exploit" or the "at this moment" type and to those types of balance issues the only workable solution is for us to take individual responsiblity.


Ah, now we're getting somewhere. First of all, I wouldn't personally ever refer to an exploit as a 'balance issue', although I understand that line has been seen as blurry in the past. But, to pick a historical example, using the 10% speed boost from Tempest is not something anyone could have ever called an "exploit"!

So yes, it's the "at this moment" type of problem that I'm talking about. Hopefully Turbine continues to identify and rectify balance problems, and all problems in the future continue to be "at this moment" problems. That being said, when people are raising balance issues in the forums, they are doing it because they're hoping to provide feedback to the development team!

If you're coming at it from the standpoint, "Turbine will correctly identify and fix all balance issues without any player input", and as such, players should only worry about their own immediate play impact -- I would agree with your logic, but disagree with the premise that players providing feedback on what is *currently* out of balance in the game isn't valued by Turbine.

[Thanimal]

Whether all Romans are liars or not, this fails because you need to state that all men are Romans for the logic to be valid.

<Buries head in hand>. The fact that the statements in quotes are incorrect logic was directly stated by cforce and was his entire point. The whole thread is about people using incorrect logic and this was intended as an example of incorrect logic and why it's worth talking about logic even if you don't agree with the premises. Here's cforce's quote again, with emphasis added by me:

If I say, "If all Romans are liars, and all Romans are men, then all men are liars," my logic is wrong, even when all Romans *aren't* liars.

[cforce]

Whether all Romans are liars or not, this fails because you need to state that all men are Romans for the logic to be valid. If you stated, "all Romans are liars and all men are Romans thus all men are liars" you would have a more concise argument.

However, your example leaves it clear that all men are not Romans thus your conclusion is false. It requires no effort to prove either of the premises.

Applicable to the discussion, you make the claim that "just don't use" isn't a legitimate reply to "the game is imbalanced". You don't show either of these to be legitimate. You directly claim the game is not imbalanced. You fail to see that the only reasoned response to the irrational and unsubstantiated claim that it is imbalanced is to tell people to take personal responsibility.

Your premises fail and therefore your conclusions fail.

This is perhaps diving to far into esoterica, but this simply isn't how deductive reasoning and logical proof work. The argument,

1. A implies B
2. C implies B
3. Therefore, A implies C

is always a faulty argument, even when A or C is false. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it, but if you don't agree with this, then we're doomed to fail to find common ground.

[Angelus_dead]

If you can find an example of core-level design error that dooms the game to failure then I'll agree that "just don't use it" does not apply. However, no issue ever raised here in the forums fits that category.
That is classically fallacious reasoning. It is the Nirvana fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy), inverted.

Simply because a particular problem won't lead to total and complete destruction doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about. Alternatively, just because things could be worse doesn't mean they're already perfect.

[I_Bob]

Well one way to help broaden the range of challenges available in the game is to modify some of the proposed changes a bit.

The Store is here to stay, and you can self impose limits on that, much like Perma death players do for other things in the game. One can choose to run without using the store to access any gameplay affecting item whlie questing. (It would still be used to change hair colors, buy character slots, etc.)

The second main change - dungeon scaling, has not feature to toggle so there is no choice at present. Right now it scales the quests based on party size alone with some adjustment for normal, hard or elite. Unfortunately, that also means that you can no longer adjust the challenge effectively by trying to shortman quests, since the dungeon self nerfs when you do.

One way to handle that, would be to scale Normal settings as they propose. Remove any scaling from Elite (maintaining current challenge settings) and split the difference with Hard, putting in a lessened scaling effect. This broadens the spectrum a bit with a lot of overlap and allows the haves to continue to challenge themselves by running elite runs with fewer players if they want a greater challenge for completion.

I agree with this, good suggestion. "Oblivion" did scaling and I think it greatly lessened the experience. Elite should be elite. If it scales down, it's no longer elite, much less challenge. There then becomes not much difference in levels, so what's the point? If the dungeon is not challenging, the game becomes a bore pretty fast. There's still a great deal of satisfaction in beating the Abbot while not much, if any, in the Reaver.

[Grond]

I beat VoD on a regular basis without a Monk splash "Tanking". My S&B Tank does just fine against him as do the many Warforged aggro magnets. The concept of "One way to beat X" is the primary reason people feel theres no challenge in the game. Expand your horizons, try different ways to complete your objectives.

Well said, Impaqt. Unfortunately, the crowd you're talking to seems more likely to claim the game is flawed because it doesn't meet their view than broaden their horizons.

[Angelus_dead]

Well said, Impaqt. Unfortunately, the crowd you're talking to seems more likely to claim the game is flawed because it doesn't meet their view than broaden their horizons.
It's pretty funny to see someone advocate a nihilistic approach to game criticism...!

[Return_To_Forever]

If you disagree with the Just don't use it fallacy, just don't use it.

[Hafeal]

Interesting post. Thanks for sharing. The funny part is I took your post as a valid reason to open the game to the have nots as opposed to the haves.

One issue is the population size of the have and have nots. If the have nots are the by far larger population, then moving them on the curve is more important than where you move the haves.

The implementation of the DDO store, which is what I gather is the true point here, is Turbine's decision to move the have nots on the scale and some of the haves are not happy about it.

Really liked your post Leyoni.


Very nice presentation but you fail to address the argument -- If X is unbalancing just do not use it.

What you are discussing is a corporate level decision making model that applies to Turbine and its developers. As players we are completely limited by the product. We can be "Haves" and make every quest trivial. We can be "Have Nots" and make every quest extremely difficult or even impossible.

Or, we can choose to be something in between.

The onus for game design and balance lies on Turbine and its developers. The decisions on individual use of every optimal item and build rest on us as individuals.

Therefore, the argument that "if X is unbalancing just do not use it" remains completely valid. Moreso given your excellent explanation. If you, individually, desire to keep in the "maximum fun zone" then keep your characters balanced between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". I'd call those the "Have Somes" -- the characters that have some of the things that make them above the "Have Nots" but below the "Haves".

In any iteration of your model the "Have Somes" will remain in the "maximum fun zone".

[Leyoni]

1. A implies B
2. C implies B
3. Therefore, A implies C

is always a faulty argument

Correct. But it has nothing to do with the faulty premises. It has to do with faulty construction.

The correct construction is A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C.

In your example there is no need to demonstrate the faultiness of either premise 1 or premise 2 because the entire structure of the argument is invalid from the start.

When correctly formed then it is necessary to demonstrate that either premise 1 or premise 2 is faulty in order to demonstrate that the conclusion 3 must also be faulty.

There are many variations on this, including some in which the validity of 1 and 2 have no bearing on the conclusion at all -- meaning whether true or false, disproving a premise doesn't disprove the conclusion.

For example: Men are brave, soldiers are brave, thus men are soldiers. The fact is that men are soldiers but it has nothing to do with men being brave or soldiers being brave. The premises have nothing to do with the conclusion.

However, I didn't think this was a course in logic. I thought it was an assertion by you that "just don't use it" is a non-constructive reply to people who claim that X creates a game imbalance.

You thoroughly avoid showing that there are genuine imbalances in the game. That means, by implication, that either you are unaware of any or there are none. Regardless, there are only 3 types of imbalances that can exist.

1. Exploits -- results from faulty code, the use of which is prohibited, the solution to which is two fold: a) just don't use it and b) Turbine eventually issues a fix.

2. Imagined imbalance -- results from momentary changes in the game through the release of new material that temporarily enables some characters to excel above others, the solution to which is two fold: a) just don't use it if you don't like it and b) Turbine eventually releases new material that brings other character types to the fore.

3. Real imbalance -- results from bad game design at initial release, the solution to which is two fold: a) the game breaks when the pressure becomes too great and the design flaw cannot be overcome or b) Turbine recodes the entire game to remove the fatal flaw.

I do not believe anyone posting here can find a single situation that fits the third type of imbalance. That means all imbalance is either an exploit or temporary. And, if you cannot bring yourself to wait for Turbine to mature the game then the reasonable and responsible choice is to "just don't use it" where "it" is whatever imbalance (exploit or temporary) bothers you.

Your very nice post on game design philosophy notwithstanding, you completely fail to show how "just don't use it" is non-productive as a reply. It is, in fact, the only meaningful reply that can be given to players since they are not responsible for issuing fixes to exploits or developing new content.

Any other response should be directed to Turbine's development staff and should be judged by them on its merits. That judgement includes both the impact on current game and the impact on future game development. And, in almost every case the judgement is going to be to ignore player suggestions.

And, from a business perspective that is required. There are tens of thousands of players, each with their own perspective on how to make the game better. Turbine cannot possibly meet all of those expectations nor should it even feel required to do so.

What Turbine can do -- AND WHAT IT HAS DONE -- is fix exploits and release new content that changes the landscape.

DDO is now and has always been a game where any player can be among the "Haves" if they want to be. It only requires time and effort.

This is why people object to the idea of selling 32 point builds or uber gear. If it is too easy to become a "Have" then the game loses the spectrum of opportunity to play both trivial and non-trivial content. It all becomes just another repeat of the same old stuff. Boredom sets in and the players will be lost.

As it currently stands every "Have Not" can become a "Have" through effort. And, new content will render some of the "Haves" "Have Somes" for a while.

[Leyoni]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. First of all, I wouldn't personally ever refer to an exploit as a 'balance issue', although I understand that line has been seen as blurry in the past. But, to pick a historical example, using the 10% speed boost from Tempest is not something anyone could have ever called an "exploit"!

So yes, it's the "at this moment" type of problem that I'm talking about. Hopefully Turbine continues to identify and rectify balance problems, and all problems in the future continue to be "at this moment" problems. That being said, when people are raising balance issues in the forums, they are doing it because they're hoping to provide feedback to the development team!

If you're coming at it from the standpoint, "Turbine will correctly identify and fix all balance issues without any player input", and as such, players should only worry about their own immediate play impact -- I would agree with your logic, but disagree with the premise that players providing feedback on what is *currently* out of balance in the game isn't valued by Turbine.

Alright, should have read this post before my last reply.

We are agreed then that we are discussing "at the moment" imbalances.

I do not disagree that player identification of perceived "at the moment" imbalance is good. It certainly is good. IMO Turbine's failure to respond with future design information feeds the paranoia surrounding these events.

But, I do disagree that player input on solutions has any value -- especially public forum postings. As a person I do not want others telling me my faults in front of others. Right, wrong or somewhere in between it simply is not a productive way to get me to change my behavior.

In the same way, public expressions of perceived imbalances and advice on how to fix them seldom produces a positive effect.

If you want me to fix my faults then take me aside and have a serious sit-down discussion with me. Demonstrate that you have some reason for me to listen to you -- you are an expert, have been through it yourself, whatever. Then I might listen.

Same for perceived imbalances. Public discussion is not valuable. Send email to the Turbine developers. Establish your credentials. Explain how and why the item is imbalancing. Offer a caveated solution -- "if you have no plans to address this with future releases, making the present issue only temporary, then here is something that you might consider to fix what I see as an imbalance."

Public response: If you don't like it, don't use it. That is the only thing that you can say to impact the game.

[Feyt]

Whoa. Player input on solutions doesn't have value??? Do you read the forums?

Public discussion is not valuable? Simply because it won't change your behavior? Lose your ego man.

[Hafeal]

I do disagree that player input on solutions has any value -- especially public forum postings. As a person I do not want others telling me my faults in front of others. Right, wrong or somewhere in between it simply is not a productive way to get me to change my behavior.

I think the key difference here is that a vast majority of players do not know who is truly responsible for what in the game. A few veterans do.

Because of the anonymity, the forums can be a good sounding board for the devs about responses to the game. The devs have stated repeatedly that they do read the forums and that input is taken into account in their decisions, even if it is not posted.

[Borror0]

Public discussion is not valuable.
The DDO developers read more the forums than you think. The problem is that posting slows you down, and even more so when you know your post is going to be nitpicked by an overwhelming majority of the playerbase. When that is the case, you have to be twice or thrice more careful in what you mean and even that is not enough.

Since game developers try to have a life between overtime and reading the forums, most of them don't post. Does not mean they don't read.

[Leyoni]

I think the key difference here is that a vast majority of players do not know who is truly responsible for what in the game. A few veterans do.

Because of the anonymity, the forums can be a good sounding board for the devs about responses to the game. The devs have stated repeatedly that they do read the forums and that input is taken into account in their decisions, even if it is not posted.

Then let the veterans talk to the people who are responsible.

I disagree with this at a basic level. However, it clearly will not change what goes on.

Neither will OP's post convince anyone to not respond, "just don't use it" to the innumerable cries of "wolf", I mean "unbalance."

[cforce]

If you disagree with the Just don't use it fallacy, just don't use it.

+1 Rep. :D

[cforce]

Public discussion is not valuable.

Well, I think we can at least establish a good "agree to disagree" point, here.
Obviously, I disagree with this premise! But, I don't know if its worthwhile to try to argue that premise here, as anything we talk about will be pure speculation regarding how the forum discussion is viewed by the devs. But, I'm satisfied that, starting from fundamentally different assumptions of how forum discussions are viewed by the devs, it's very clear why we reach different conclusions.

[Kylani]

A point that you have failed to demonstrate. :)

But, at this point we are just going in circles aren't we. You claim that the thread isn't about game imbalance but about a player-based response to claims of game imbalance.

Nothing can convince you that claims are meaningless -- requiring proof -- so that the player-based response is moot, neither appropriate nor inappropriate. If the claims are true then that must be shown to be the case. Efforts thus far only illustrate that Turbine has a robust system of varying difficulties and challenges and that it responds to unintended problems by addressing exploits.

At an individual, personal player level "don't use it" is not only an effective solution but, in the case of exploits, required by the EULA. At Turbine's level it doesn't apply.

Resolution of genuinely imbalancing situations rest with Turbine. Because they have historically responded by making changes when they deemed them appropriate AND because the game, like D&D itself, is constantly undergoing revision and the introduction of new material there is no demonstrable validity to claims of imbalance.

Thus, "just don't use it" is not only a productive (and EULA driven) answer. It is also the only one that we as individual players can apply if we honestly believe something is imbalanced.

Thus, I repeat my self and the impact of this is that you will repeat yourself. It keeps the wheels rolling but does nothing to further the conversation.

To further the conversation you must prove that DDO is broken due to imbalance thus making the "just don't use it" reply inappropriate. Since you cannot do this your conclusion is flawed since "just don't use it" is, in fact, the only answer to situations that you perceive as imbalanced and broken but cannot show to be.

It is a personal problem (thinking something is imbalanced) that requires a personal solution (just don't use it).

I agree with your posts Leyoni. Thanks!

[cforce]

Public response: If you don't like it, don't use it. That is the only thing that you can say to impact the game.

Although, taking your premise of "public feedback isn't valuable", I'd still disagree with this -- If you're trying to affect change without resorting to forum feedback, the best in-game response is actually the opposite: "if you think it is imbalanced, abuse it." Actions speak much louder than words, and if something which is too powerful is repeatedly used in-game to trivialize content, it will be adjusted faster.

And, if you're wrong about a perceived imbalance, of course, you won't *actually* be able to trivialize content in-game!

In fact, *avoiding* in-game use of an item you think is too powerful makes it *less* likely to be adjusted by a "forum-ignoring" dev.

[Djeserit]

OP, the weakness of your position is in your concept of Challenge.



At the core of understanding why games need to be balanced is understanding the fun that comes out of challenge. If you imagine a spectrum of difficulty from "press this button, and you win" to "will never be possible for anyone, ever", you can map out a 'fun response'

Well OK, 'challenge' could be the invert of the Skinnerian concept of 'reinforcement'. Only the concept of reinforcement is more inclusive. It also includes the role of luck for example.

The gaming industry, that is casinos and state lottery boards, have worked this out a little better conceptually, relying on Behaviorist theory.

They have worked extensively on the rate and size of reward needed to keep people playing. It turns out that the perfect 'reinforcement schedule' is very individualistic.

That's why casinos have nickle slots for some, and high-end tables for others. States offer many different lotto games.

More people opt to spend more time on nickle slots, and I would say from my experience, most people who play DDO want an 'easy button' most of the time. Rarely you meet the people who love to run The Pit at level 4, or at any level. This is the problem with your post, OP. Most players don't want a challenge most of the time.

What an MMO needs to do to be successful (keep people playing), is to offer a range of reinforcement schedules, so that I can veg out when I want, play a challenge when I want.

DDO should offer a 'win button' to the many players who want one. And reserve a few very challenging quests for the times when you want to work for it.

[Borror0]

most people who play DDO want an 'easy button' most of the time
Run on Normal.

Most players don't want a challenge most of the time.
Avoiding to be challenged simply means that the design is frustrating/not fun.

Otherwise, if you want to avoid being challenged, why play? If it's always too easy, then why not run WW on a level 16?

DDO should offer a 'win button' to the many players who want one.
That would mean you have discovered evidences no other MMO developer did before you.

While that may be possible, you'll have to elaborate.

[cforce]

OP, the weakness of your position is in your concept of
Well OK, 'challenge' could be the invert of the Skinnerian concept of 'reinforcement'. Only the concept of reinforcement is more inclusive. It also includes the role of luck for example.
The gaming industry, that is casinos and state lottery boards, have worked this out a little better conceptually, relying on Behaviorist theory.

They have worked extensively on the rate and size of reward needed to keep people playing. It turns out that the perfect 'reinforcement schedule' is very individualistic.

That's why casinos have nickle slots for some, and high-end tables for others. States offer many different lotto games.

I won't claim to know *all* of the relevant details, here, but I *think* that the reinforcement theory that gives insight into human behavior as it relates to gambling has been shown to break down when you introduce determinism. IE: give a rat a food pellet after he pushes a button 5 times, and he learns to push it 5 times when he's hungry. Make it a completely random food pellet drop, and he just starts incessantly "rolling the dice". This definitely feeds some of the behavior in DDO, although I don't necessarily agree that it inverts to "challenge".



Rarely you meet the people who love to run The Pit at level 4, or at any level. This is the problem with your post, OP. Most players don't want a challenge most of the time.

Actually, if you go back to the OP, or the material I cited from Lazzaro, "The Pit at Level 4" is exactly the kind of thing that falls off of the other end of the curve, in "frustrating" territory.



What an MMO needs to do to be successful (keep people playing), is to offer a range of reinforcement schedules, so that I can veg out when I want, play a challenge when I want.

Yes, I absolutely agree.



DDO should offer a 'win button' to the many players who want one. And reserve a few very challenging quests for the times when you want to work for it.

Actually, it shouldn't quite go this far. Computer Game Industry has shown that, while many people will express desire for a literal "I Win" button, actually *giving* them one gives them a short-term rush, followed by boredom and abandonment. DDO should absolutely offer "mild challenges" for when you really want to coast, but history shows that "no risk whatsoever" is a recipe for players losing interest, even when they *say* that's what they want.

[Angelus_dead]

many people will express desire for a literal "I Win" button,
Not quite. That's a slippery slope fallacy.

What players do usually request is to gain an ability to do things easier than they do right now, but they aren't really asking for it to be taken to extremes. That's like saying that a woman who expresses a desire to lose wait hopes to starve into a skeleton.

[cforce]

Not quite. That's a slippery slope fallacy.

What players do usually request is to gain an ability to do things easier than they do right now, but they aren't really asking for it to be taken to extremes. That's like saying that a woman who expresses a desire to lose wait hopes to starve into a skeleton.

Hm, a fair point: I'm guilty of presenting a simplified extreme, here. That being said, I think the reality is a fair bit closer to my extreme than you indicate.

Consider the following hypothetical: the devs go insane and introduce a 'Raid-Boss Vorpal' into the game. While not a literal "I win button", it reduces some of the toughest encounters in the game to a cakewalk. While there would be plenty of negative player feedback online, the majority of players *would* try to attain "the most powerful weapon in the game". Those that got it would likely leave the game sooner, out of boredom.

Players don't ask for an 'I win button' directly, of course -- they (generally) know it to be a silly request.

Perhaps it would be better to say, "players will seek in-game advantage, even if the advantage is ridiculously unbalanced, and even if the advantage makes the game boring." It's not so much that they'll ask for the "I win button", as it is that they will seek to obtain it if it existed.

Does this sit better with you?

[Ghoste]

Spending too much time in "Boring" or "Frustrating" leads players to leave the game.Abbott.

[Angelus_dead]

While there would be plenty of negative player feedback online, the majority of players *would* try to attain "the most powerful weapon in the game".
There's a difference between words and actions, or between what players will suggest and what they'll take advantage of. After all, plenty of people have used exploits who would never try to argue that they were a beneficial feature.

An analogous example would be Jeff Bezos: he opposes the idea of software patents, but uses them for his company's profit so long as they remain legal.

[Borror0]

Abbott.
One word that says it all. :p

[jmelanie7]

Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating


Some ppl ruin their life trying to win by pushing a button...very sad indeed. I guess slot machines are not so boring eh....

[cforce]

Some ppl ruin their life trying to win by pushing a button...very sad indeed. I guess slot machines are not so boring eh....

Strictly speaking, slot machines are a "Lose Button". ;)

[Big-Dex]

Nice thread CForce. :D Very interestesting and thought provoking discussion by all involved. :)

If I were to add one word to this conversation it would be ...

VARIABLES!

There are far too many variables in the balance equation here and in gaming in general to achieve some one-size-fits-all balance. However, Turbine is trying to do that to do some degree here. It seems they are introducing systems and changing systems to make the game more accessible for all, and therefore more profitable to them, which then in turn generates more content for us which in turn means more "fun" for all.


In any case, for the sake of the discussion above, the fact that there are too many VARIABLES has to be taken into consideration. A variety of dynamics are involved in this game (and any game for that matter)...

The group difficulty dynamic
The solo difficulty dynamic
The business/profit dynamic
The developer's intent dynamic
The inventive problem solver dynamic (depending upon what some view as the problem)
The time dynamic
The gear/equipment/character dynamic
This is probably not even an exhaustive list. Within these alone however, there are far too many VARIABLES to make a one-size-fits-all game on every quest and at every level.

With that in mind, I would say that on the surface, the "just don't use it" argument seems to fit the bill. Individual choice and self-discipline should rule the day. If this were a solo game, that would be absolutely true. However, this is not just a solo game. It has a group dynamic, which causes the "just don't use it" argument to break down. What one person chooses to use, or not use for that matter, could impact another's "fun" factor.

Some games have employed different servers to combat that. Some games employ the use of various toggle options to deal with this dynamic. Some games leave it to the players to handle on their own (DDO does this for the most part).

Funny thing here is that this has me thinking about something. I am a proponent of the toggle option for the DDO store, for example. However, now I wonder how many other toggle options we could come up with to make this game "fun" for all? Then I wonder at what point would all those toggle options become too complex and start to get frustrating, thus decreasing the "fun" factor for many?

So, we run full cycle here and find ourselves back to the simple system Turbine has in place. Let the gamers work it out via an LFM comment and a mutally agreed upon difficulty level or let them choose to solo it (the "not looking for more (LFM)" option ;)). As long as Turbine get their money and the gamers get some "fun" ... then I guess it is win/win.

Nevertheless, I will add, when the game ceases to be a challenge, the gamer will move on and find some other mountain to climb (there was another interesting thread recently that made this point). That is the nature of the beast.

I don't know if I said anything really worth reading or any real contribution to the discussion at hand in this post, but it made me feel better anywho :D. All I really care about is that Turbine puts what I want into this game and makes it "fun" for me ... the rest is all irrelevant anyway. ;)

Just sayin'
Dex was here. :cool:

[Leyoni]

How do you respond to this? How does it's arguement about game imbalance (really the core of the OP's post whether they recognize it or not) fit with your theory regarding "just don't use it"?

[Big-Dex]

How do you respond to this? How does it's arguement about game imbalance (really the core of the OP's post whether they recognize it or not) fit with your theory regarding "just don't use it"?

Is that question directed at me or all who have posted?

Dex was here. :cool:

[Leyoni]

Is that question directed at me or all who have posted?

Dex was here. :cool:

Sorry, at OP and their supporters.

I'm actually in agreement with your post since it ultimately leads to my POV.

[Big-Dex]

Sorry, at OP and their supporters.

I'm actually in agreement with your post since it ultimately leads to my POV.

Don't flatter yourself too much. ;) :D

The way folks are bandying the "just don't use it" argument is inconsiderate of many valid concerns in a three year old game that has a very dedicated fan base. If tihs were a brand new game, it would be one thing. It is not. It is changing in a way that folks will have to get used to and smacking somebody across the nose and attempting to marginalize their concerns and frustration over changes they did not ask for only increases that frustration.

I am not saying you are doing this, per se. But it is being done in a widescale way.

Apart from that, it really boils down to this... and you can quote me :D ...

If DDO:EU, in its final incarnation, ceases to be "fun" for players, they "just won't use it."

Just sayin'
Dex was here. :cool:

BTW - I think the "no store" server is impractical on too many levels to note. I prefer the "no-store" toggle option on a quest-by-quest basis.

[Angelus_dead]

There are far too many variables in the balance equation here and in gaming in general to achieve some one-size-fits-all balance.
The thread topic never claimed "one size fits all" was an objective, or even a possibility.


With that in mind, I would say that on the surface, the "just don't use it" argument seems to fit the bill. Individual choice and self-discipline should rule the day.
Do you have any justification for those statements? (They sound like something out of an anarcho-libertarian manifesto)


If this were a solo game, that would be absolutely true.
No: it's not "absolutely" true in that context either.

The developers of single-player games also need to place restraints on what the players can do, if they want the game to be successful. They have some more leeway to push responsibility onto the players, but in the end it's still their job to build a quality product, and that means making decisions for themselves, instead of shoveling together whatever they can think of and expecting the customers to somehow know which elements will be more fun.


So, we run full cycle here and find ourselves back to the simple system Turbine has in place. Let the gamers work it out via an LFM comment and a mutally agreed upon difficulty level or let them choose to solo it (the "not looking for more (LFM)" option ;)).
As was already explained above, that is an inadequate response.

One cannot use LFM comments to prevent all the other players in the world (including professional playtesters at Turbine) from utilizing a feature. And unless that can be prevented, then you haven't stopped the disputed feature from impacting the design of game aspects you do want to use.

I'll illustrate that with a hypothetical example. Suppose the DDO store gets a new item, the "Elixir of Survival", which is a BOA potion granting a 5-minute buff of 50% less incoming damage. What effect would that have on gameplay at the top level?

Obviously, it would make it a lot easier to survive a raid boss. In fact, 50% less DPS should be enough for a cleric14/monk2 to kill Arraetrikos in solo melee. If a group with that buff fights an existing raid boss, they'll find it too easy. If a raid boss is designed who can be challenging to players with Elixir of Survival, then it will be much too hard for people who'd like to "Just Don't Use It". Even if a player succeeds on preventing any member of his own party from using the feature, he can't prevent it from having an impact on the design of the game.

Here are two ineffective rebuttals to my example:
1. "Your example isn't real, because Turbine already made the store buffs not work in raids".
If Turbine found a way to nerf or limit the disputed feature so that it doesn't harm gameplay, good for them; but that doesn't mean "just don't use it" was a viable reaction. In fact, if "just don't use it" worked, then Turbine wouldn't have needed to prohibit store items from raids, because players could exercise restraint on their own.

2. "Your example only works because the disputed feature is so bad for game balance that it's practically an exploit. If it were a lesser effect like monk AC or w-p or metamagic, then personal restraint would work"
Someone already replied with that justification above, but it just doesn't work. It's not possible to magically draw a bright line separating features that are too strong from those that are just fine. Not only do individuals have different opinions about what they'd find to be overpowered, but also features aren't necessarily overpowered in isolation; only in combination. That rebuttal is a classic continuum fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy).

[Leyoni]

LOL!

Ok, I don't mean to marginalize legitimate concerns. OTOH, I don't think most of the concerns are legitimate. To the contrary, I think that DDO has gone the predictable way of all games: initial excitement, steady fan base, gradual loss of interest. The end step is seeing the game end.

DDO:EU tries to avoid the end step by reinventing the game. That, too, is predictable. Other franchises do it by releasing Great Game II: More of the Same only Different!.

Because we live in a world of instant gratification there is little tolerance for allowing DDO, which in many ways differs from other games, to mature. MMO players expect it to be fully mature already and for future releases to add vast new content. D&D players expect their weekly dungeon experience with a live DM -- only on an always available 24/7 basis. That is too much to expect from the game.

Almost all of the concerns deal with impatience over content. Those that do not are -- have been -- addressed with revisions to the game. In some cases the fan base doesn't like the changes because it doesn't fit their idea of how things should be. That doesn't make their complaint legitimate -- just makes it a complaint.

So, if you can show legitimate concerns (as I challenged OP, show where the game is genuinely unbalanced) then we can discuss more. OTOH, I don't think these exist at the present. Certainly the store isn't one of them since the players can control that themselves.

[Hafeal]

So, if you can show legitimate concerns (as I challenged OP, show where the game is genuinely unbalanced) then we can discuss more. OTOH, I don't think these exist at the present. Certainly the store isn't one of them since the players can control that themselves.

While on the fence on this issue, I have said much the same thing.

I also am persuaded by the practicality of some of the store items as a time convenience (e.g., recall for mana, saving a party from wiping, being able to complete an explorer zone without recalling)

[Big-Dex]

The thread topic never claimed "one size fits all" was an objective, or even a possibility.


Do you have any justification for those statements? (They sound like something out of an anarcho-libertarian manifesto)


No: it's not "absolutely" true in that context either.

The developers of single-player games also need to place restraints on what the players can do, if they want the game to be successful. They have some more leeway to push responsibility onto the players, but in the end it's still their job to build a quality product, and that means making decisions for themselves, instead of shoveling together whatever they can think of and expecting the customers to somehow know which elements will be more fun.


As was already explained above, that is an inadequate response.

One cannot use LFM comments to prevent all the other players in the world (including professional playtesters at Turbine) from utilizing a feature. And unless that can be prevented, then you haven't stopped the disputed feature from impacting the design of game aspects you do want to use.

I'll illustrate that with a hypothetical example. Suppose the DDO store gets a new item, the "Elixir of Survival", which is a BOA potion granting a 5-minute buff of 50% less incoming damage. What effect would that have on gameplay at the top level?

Obviously, it would make it a lot easier to survive a raid boss. In fact, 50% less DPS should be enough for a cleric14/monk2 to kill Arraetrikos in solo melee. If a group with that buff fights an existing raid boss, they'll find it too easy. If a raid boss is designed who can be challenging to players with Elixir of Survival, then it will be much too hard for people who'd like to "Just Don't Use It". Even if a player succeeds on preventing any member of his own party from using the feature, he can't prevent it from having an impact on the design of the game.

Here are two ineffective rebuttals to my example:
1. "Your example isn't real, because Turbine already made the store buffs not work in raids".
If Turbine found a way to nerf or limit the disputed feature so that it doesn't harm gameplay, good for them; but that doesn't mean "just don't use it" was a viable reaction. In fact, if "just don't use it" worked, then Turbine wouldn't have needed to prohibit store items from raids, because players could exercise restraint on their own.

2. "Your example only works because the disputed feature is so bad for game balance that it's practically an exploit. If it were a lesser effect like monk AC or w-p or metamagic, then personal restraint would work"
Someone already replied with that justification above, but it just doesn't work. It's not possible to magically draw a bright line separating features that are too strong from those that are just fine. Not only do individuals have different opinions about what they'd find to be overpowered, but also features aren't necessarily overpowered in isolation; only in combination. That rebuttal is a classic continuum fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy).

A_D ... you misread me my friend.

If you take my post as a whole (and not piece meal), and my post following, I don't disagree with you at all. We might disagree on some details, but in principle, I agree. The game has changed. It is not the same game. Look at my signature.

Do I necessarily like the changes made to DDO? Nope. Am I getting used to the idea of the changes? Yup. It is really that simple.

All that the post you examined is trying to say is that there are far too many variables to take them all into consideration and please everyone. No matter what is done, it is a continual juggling act of pushing those sliders that the OP suggests (and some sliders he does not specifically list) a little to the left, a little to the right to try and keep as many players as possilbe in the "fun" zone (and reap a profit while doing it). That is it.

As far as the application to DDO:EU goes, well... I have to fall back to this statement...

If DDO:EU, in its final incarnation, ceases to be "fun" for players, they "just won't use it."

I might even add this addendum...

If DDO:EU, in its final incarnation, continues to be more "fun" for players than anything else out there, they will use it.

This will be despite the changes and ethics will inevitably have to rule the day, much like the change to the loot mechanic, the WoP "nerf" and various other things that we have argued/discussed on these forums.

FWIW,
Dex was here. :cool:

EDIT: I am using DDO:EU to illustrate the principles of agreement here. I understand that this thread is more of a philosophical conversation than a specific discussion about the merits of any one or several specific new gaming features.

[Angelus_dead]

Ok, I don't mean to marginalize legitimate concerns. OTOH, I don't think most of the concerns are legitimate.
As has been specifically explained to you multiple times, that is not the subject of this thread.


So, if you can show legitimate concerns (as I challenged OP, show where the game is genuinely unbalanced) then we can discuss more.
It doesn't appear that the OP would have much incentive to respond to that challenge (especially since the thread topic doesn't depend on any particular imbalance)


Certainly the store isn't one of them since the players can control that themselves.
Incorrect. The whole point of this thread was to explain that players do not have the ability to prevent a feature from impacting their gameplay simply by restraining themselves from using it.

Maybe the store is a problem, maybe it isn't; that would depend on the details of the store offerings, which is not yet public knowledge. But if it does sell problematic items, then "just don't use it" is not a valid counterpoint to a request to remove the items.

[Angelus_dead]

I also am persuaded by the practicality of some of the store items as a time convenience (e.g., recall for mana, saving a party from wiping, being able to complete an explorer zone without recalling)
The details and implications of particular store items are not pertinent to the topic, which is an abstract discussion of whether or not an exhortation of personal restraint is a valid response to complaints about game balance.

[Big-Dex]

LOL!

Ok, I don't mean to marginalize legitimate concerns. OTOH, I don't think most of the concerns are legitimate. To the contrary, I think that DDO has gone the predictable way of all games: initial excitement, steady fan base, gradual loss of interest. The end step is seeing the game end.

DDO:EU tries to avoid the end step by reinventing the game. That, too, is predictable. Other franchises do it by releasing Great Game II: More of the Same only Different!.

Because we live in a world of instant gratification there is little tolerance for allowing DDO, which in many ways differs from other games, to mature. MMO players expect it to be fully mature already and for future releases to add vast new content. D&D players expect their weekly dungeon experience with a live DM -- only on an always available 24/7 basis. That is too much to expect from the game.

Almost all of the concerns deal with impatience over content. Those that do not are -- have been -- addressed with revisions to the game. In some cases the fan base doesn't like the changes because it doesn't fit their idea of how things should be. That doesn't make their complaint legitimate -- just makes it a complaint.

So, if you can show legitimate concerns (as I challenged OP, show where the game is genuinely unbalanced) then we can discuss more. OTOH, I don't think these exist at the present. Certainly the store isn't one of them since the players can control that themselves.

Not that we need to go any further with this, but I will say "legitimate concerns" and "fun" as they relate to a game (or more particularly, game balance) are very relative terms with the only basis in reality being mostly perspective and subjective reasoning.

That being said, for some "the store" changes the current "balance." I don't know if it "unbalances" things (as folks have different ideas of what is balanced and what is not balanced), but it clearly changes the balance making the game less "fun" for some/many (and more fun for others OTOH). Is that a fair representation? If it is, then that is a "legitimate concern" to some/many. Right?

Since the only real control factors in a game such as this, as it has a pretty substantial group dynamic built in, can be put there by the developers (in toggle options, separate servers, removal of items, nerfs, unnerfs, and such things), folks are going to inevitably bring their arguments for such changes (or counterarguments) to the table. There are fair and legitimate suggestions on both sides of the discussion. To tell them to "just don't use it" is not a quick fix to the whole thing in their mind because they can't escape the reality that there will be some who won't honor their request and make it frustrating for them to enjoy what they previously had no problem enjoying. Nevertheless, for you, it is a quick fix. Its all relative.

But in the end, isn't it interesting that the forums add the one element to the DDO game that make it all the more like PnP ... the fun arguments about rules the DM (Turbine) makes! :D :D :D

Dex was here. :cool:

[Vorn]

The details and implications of particular store items are not pertinent to the topic, which is an abstract discussion of whether or not an exhortation of personal restraint is a valid response to complaints about game balance.

QFT.

Analagously, I've yet to see LFM's in the current game that say: "No WoP, plz." Most of the time in SoS if there's one or two folks so equipped, it more like "Oh thank goodness, we just shaved ten minutes off our time. I very much liked the junk bond analogy as well a few pages back.

[Worker1179]

Hopefully this gives people a little bit of a better idea of why "just don't use it" isn't a viable solution to balance problems. (I won't even bother getting into why, "...and don't group with anyone who does" doesn't work -- simply imagine trying to fill a LFM with 6 or 7 different exclusions listed, and you'll understand why such an approach is impossible.) If you've read this, and still think "just don't use it" fixes the problem... well, at least maybe I'll get some positive reputation ;).

Isn't this entirely dependent on what the balance problems are? Could there be some cases where an imbalance would only effect someone who chose to use a new optional game function? Might there be no real loss to those not interested in the new optional function? Then, wouldn't the "just don't use it" solution be a suitable answer to the introduction of the new function?

Then, are we sure that the new game function being introduced to DDO isn't one of these situations?

I don't believe the store won't be used by some party members during my DDO experience, and I don't believe those party members using the store won't affect me. I'm only saying, the "just don't use it" solution COULD be viable in some cases.

[cforce]

How do you respond to this? How does it's arguement about game imbalance (really the core of the OP's post whether they recognize it or not) fit with your theory regarding "just don't use it"?

Leyoni, I'm afraid you're going to need to be more specific on this one -- there are a *lot* of arguments being put forth in that thread. Can you call out exactly which one you're talking about?

(For what it's worth, I *don't* think the store is a problem, per se. It can be used as a tool by the developers to widen or narrow the balance gap, as necessary. It's a pretty good "balance scalpel". Store exclusives tend to widen the gap, and watered down versions of what already is owned by powergamers narrows the gap.)

[Angelus_dead]

Isn't this entirely dependent on what the balance problems are? Could there be some cases where an imbalance would only effect someone who chose to use a new optional game function? Might there be no real loss to those not interested in the new optional function?
The answers to all of that is pretty much no.

In a complex system the various features will all have direct and indirect effects on each other, and it would be highly unlikely for any balance problem to be somehow limited so as to not exhibit any effect on the rest of the game. Can you think of any examples of a balance problem whose effect is only localized?

Since any particular problem is most likely going to have an impact on the rest of the game, the burden would be on the person claiming that that's not the case.

[TechNoFear]

You assume the game is currently balanced for all players to be in the 'fun' zone, which is clearly not the case.

You assume you are correct about this lowering game challenge for you, despite you personally not using these features.
I could point to re-useable shrines, raid loot tokens as examples where the fears of the 'majority' of players was baseless.


DDO is balanced for power gamers covered in raid loot with a full set of +2 tomes. Casual gamers are already well behind, with no way to catch up and the gulf growing.

You also forget the penalty for using the store items, they cost real money.
Sorry but I can not see any possible circumstance (in DDO) where I would spend one cent of my hard earned cash on you.

I will however spend it saving my RL mates from wasting our limited play time.

[cforce]

So, if you can show legitimate concerns (as I challenged OP, show where the game is genuinely unbalanced) then we can discuss more. OTOH, I don't think these exist at the present.

I'm not sure they do either, Leyoni -- but as A_D has pointed out a couple of times now, you're still essentially missing the point of the OP.

But, as you mentioned before: we're going in circles. From what I can tell, you seem to be fixed on discussing a different topic than the one I originally raised (which A_D has correctly summarized in a single sentence). I can't figure out where my communication isn't clear. <shrug>

Let me take one more stab at it: would you be willing to answer the following question:

"If the developers introduced a *legitimate* balance problem like the 'Raid Boss Vorpal', and someone said, "this is unbalanced", would you still think "just don't use it" would be a good suggestion as a solution?"

I *think* your answer here is still *yes*, from what I understand: given that you don't think forum input is useful feedback, you'd assume that the development team will identify and fix the problem on their own, and that the only thing we as players should worry about is what we should do in the meantime?

[Leyoni]

That being said, for some "the store" changes the current "balance." I don't know if it "unbalances" things (as folks have different ideas of what is balanced and what is not balanced), but it clearly changes the balance making the game less "fun" for some/many (and more fun for others OTOH). Is that a fair representation? If it is, then that is a "legitimate concern" to some/many. Right?

No. But, since most of us posting to the forums grew up with a Western (that is, European/North American) mind set it probably appears to be a "legitimate concern" to you. This is, of course, not the case as legitimacy doesn't have to do with establishing that the person HAS a concern but, instead, that their concern represents some truth.

Other posters opinions notwithstanding, the OP must demonstrate that concerns over balance are founded before his post has legitimacy. When there are legitimate concerns then clearly "just don't use it" is no answer. However, when there is no legitimate concern -- just personal opinions about why something is or isn't joyful (it ruins my fun so it is bad, that is the crux of your argument) -- then the only reasonable reply is to say, just don't use it.

This applies in the case of the store -- to cite an example. But it also applies to other cases. Monk splash, Tempest, character names -- select any subject that people cry "unbalance" or "not fun" about and the reasonable reply is, "just don't use it." OP's post does not disprove this. In fact, OP's post has nothing to do with any response as it only shows game design theory.

His post argues for concluding that when there is legitimate imbalance that the only response is to rebalance the game. That, absolutely, leads to concluding that in those cases "just don't use it" cannot suffice.

All well and good -- and entirely meaningless unless the OP is also willing to demonstrate where DDO is legitimately imbalanced. He hasn't done that and neither have any other posters.

FWIW, the closest thing that exists to legitimate imbalance is the use of stacking dodge bonuses for improved AC. This can be solved in multiple ways. Among them are removing the stacking ability, adding new armor options for heavy armor users and, I'm sure, other methods that I can't think of.

But, to claim that it is a game threatening imbalance is inaccurate. And, if it is really a problem for players then they should exercise their free will to not guild or group with players whose builds rely on this. So, in the end, it is about self control and personal decision.

Labeling every person's feeling "legitimate concern" doesn't make it so. Nor should they expect any reply other than "if it bothers you then just don't use/do it."

[Leyoni]

I'm not sure they do either, Leyoni -- but as A_D has pointed out a couple of times now, you're still essentially missing the point of the OP.

But, as you mentioned before: we're going in circles. From what I can tell, you seem to be fixed on discussing a different topic than the one I originally raised (which A_D has correctly summarized in a single sentence). I can't figure out where my communication isn't clear. <shrug>

Let me take one more stab at it: would you be willing to answer the following question:

"If the developers introduced a *legitimate* balance problem like the 'Raid Boss Vorpal', and someone said, "this is unbalanced", would you still think "just don't use it" would be a good suggestion as a solution?"

I *think* your answer here is still *yes*, from what I understand: given that you don't think forum input is useful feedback, you'd assume that the development team will identify and fix the problem on their own, and that the only thing we as players should worry about is what we should do in the meantime?

I have to say cforce that I quite like you and your posts.

I understand your original post. It shows the game design model and explains that for a game to be most successful the majority of players must be in the "maximum fun zone" most of the time.

You don't seem to understand that this has nothing to do with replies to spurious complaints about a game suggesting that those posters grow up and exercise mature decision skills to avoid doing things that they find objectionable. And, you don't seem to understand that the premise of your post -- just don't use it -- is not disproved by game design theory.

That is because the design theory only applies to real examples of really unbalancing events.

To answer your Raid Boss Vorpal question. It depends on a couple of factors. One is, is this how the developers meant for things to go? If so the question is, "Why?" What are they trying to achieve? IMO such design is seldom deliberate. In my experience the goal is to get players to execute a limited number of strategies -- strategies that are not part of the player's normal skill set. It isn't that the scenario cannot be won but that it cannot be won using the "think inside the box" mindset.

If the answer is that it is not working as intended then I think changes should be made.

In point of fact there are examples like this in DDO. Abbot is one of them. Players don't seem able to beat the quest on a routine basis yet the quest is beatable and it is working as designed. IMO that makes it a good quest even if lots of people don't do it.

And, the model you provide in the original post supports this. There can be quests outside the "maximum fun zone" on both ends of the spectrum.

However, "just don't use it" in the case of Raid Boss Vorpal doesn't really benefit anyone because it doesn't address the real issue. The real issue is unachievable goals (beat the unbeatable boss). If that is really the case then the developers have to make changes. OTOH, if the goal is achievable -- just not by the methods being used -- then the quest works like designed. That is evil genius sneaky and I like it. :D

[Angelus_dead]

You assume the game is currently balanced for all players to be in the 'fun' zone, which is clearly not the case.
No. Neither the first post nor the most recent post in this thread made that assumption.


You assume you are correct about this lowering game challenge for you, despite you personally not using these features.
The subject of this thread doesn't apply only to challenge being lowered. A balance problem could also be created if challenge is raised.


DDO is balanced for power gamers covered in raid loot with a full set of +2 tomes.
That does not appear to be the case. To me, it doesn't look like DDO is balanced for any demographic.

[Angelus_dead]

I understand your original post.
Could you demonstrate that understanding? So far your comments imply the opposite:


You don't seem to understand that this has nothing to do with replies to spurious complaints about a game suggesting that those posters grow up and exercise mature decision skills to avoid doing things that they find objectionable.


To answer your Raid Boss Vorpal question. It depends on a couple of factors. One is, is this how the developers meant for things to go? If so the question is, "Why?" What are they trying to achieve?
No, it does not depend on any such factors. Neither the intention of the developers nor the reaction of the playerbase is pertinent to the question of whether or not suggesting personal restraint is an adequate reply.

Look, suppose there is some change like new monk AC, and some person doesn't like what it does to game balance. Maybe he's right or maybe he's wrong- that doesn't matter. Telling him to "just not use it" doesn't help anything. If you can convince him that the change will have a different effect than what he expects, or that the result will actually be good somehow, that's a different kind of reply, and one which could potentially be valid depending on the details.

[Big-Dex]

FWIW, the closest thing that exists to legitimate imbalance is the use of stacking dodge bonuses for improved AC. This can be solved in multiple ways. Among them are removing the stacking ability, adding new armor options for heavy armor users and, I'm sure, other methods that I can't think of.

Could I not just reply to your "legitimate concern" to "just don't use it"??? :D :p

Look, it seems to me you are looking at "balance" one way and others are looking at "balance" another way. If that is the case, then "balance" is the relative issue.

Please define "balance" as you see it?

Dex was here. :cool:

PS - You might have done this already in this thread and I missed it. If you have and I missed it, please spare me reread and point me in the right direction.

[Angelus_dead]

In point of fact there are examples like this in DDO. Abbot is one of them. Players don't seem able to beat the quest on a routine basis yet the quest is beatable and it is working as designed. IMO that makes it a good quest even if lots of people don't do it.
Hilarious. Totally hilarious.

The Abbot quest is not working as designed. For the mod 5 raid to be literally over 10,000 times as difficult as the mod 6 raid was not the design objective. Also, it's obviously not a good quest when viewed from a customer-retention perspective.

[SimVerg]

Hilarious. Totally hilarious.

The Abbot quest is not working as designed. For the mod 5 raid to be literally over 10,000 times as difficult as the mod 6 raid was not the design objective. Also, it's obviously not a good quest when viewed from a customer-retention perspective.

Good to know they've made the Abbot easier in the last 3 months :p

[Leyoni]

Going to address two snippits from Angelus_dead,


Look, suppose there is some change like new monk AC, and some person doesn't like what it does to game balance. Maybe he's right or maybe he's wrong- that doesn't matter. Telling him to "just not use it" doesn't help anything. If you can convince him that the change will have a different effect than what he expects, or that the result will actually be good somehow, that's a different kind of reply, and one which could potentially be valid depending on the details.

Here is the thing. You cannot convince anybody of anything on these forums. It is all just rhetoric. The only possible way to convince someone is to offer proof -- the type of proof that makes the game developers sit back and go "OMG we F*d up!"

Other than that it is just a contest of who writes more posts or has the biggest fan club shouting down the contrary POV. The most rational people don't even bother responding. The most hypersensitive reply with all sorts of solutions that just screw over other elements of the gaming population. For those remaining who get sucked into these discussions (mistakenly thinking that reason will prevail) the solution to the imagined problems is to tell people "just don't use it".


Hilarious. Totally hilarious.

The Abbot quest is not working as designed. For the mod 5 raid to be literally over 10,000 times as difficult as the mod 6 raid was not the design objective. Also, it's obviously not a good quest when viewed from a customer-retention perspective.

No, according to Turbine Abbot works as intended. Your problem is that you are not willing to accept this (as evidenced by your repeatedly citing it as broken). The fact is that there are groups that run Abbot and succeed.

And, I'd like to see your statistical analysis leading to the "literally over 10,000" assertion. Lastly, if you don't like Abbot then don't run it. Nothing forces you to do that. As the original post shows, some parts of the game must be hard just like some must be easy. Stay in the "maximum fun zone" doing what you are capable of. There are others who stretch the boundaries of that zone for whom the challenge of Abbot IS fun.

[Leyoni]

Could you demonstrate that understanding?

Let's let the original post speak for itself, shall we?


There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" Rather than continue to reply to it directly in threads where it crops up, I'm going to try to explain the problem once, here, and then just start linking to here when it comes up.

At the core of understanding why games need to be balanced is understanding the fun that comes out of challenge. If you imagine a spectrum of difficulty from "press this button, and you win" to "will never be possible for anyone, ever", you can map out a 'fun response' alongside it, like this:


Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating

The games that keep people playing the longest are the ones that oscillate back and forth in that Maximum Fun Zone: you need to have some periods of only Mild Challenge, with ramp-ups to extreme challenge, and so forth. Spending too much time in "Boring" or "Frustrating" leads players to leave the game.

I won't go into this in too much more detail, except to say that what I'm talking about here falls into the category of "generally accepted principles" in the game industry.

Now, can we look at what cforce wrote?

He said "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" Rather than continue to reply to it directly in threads where it crops up, I'm going to try to explain the problem once, here, and then just start linking to here when it comes up.

So, his first point is that he is trying to demonstrate that this "just don't use it" response is a problem that he hopes to forever put to rest. And, in making his initial point he specifically talks about things that are unbalancing.

Having established that as cforce's premise for his entire post (which he himself did, these were his words that I've quoted afterall) I challenged him to name a single unbalancing thing in DDO. He replied with this:


I'm not claiming (here, anyway) that there is a game balance problem in DDO.

Now, cforce starts with the premise that replying "don't use it" is not an answer to things that are unbalancing and then states that there is not a game balance problem in DDO.

You piped in with this:


No, his post doesn't depend on alleging an existing imbalance in DDO.

Which, of course is absolutely in error since imbalance in DDO is precisely the subject matter of his post.

Now, cforce goes on to explain why balance is important in a game, At the core of understanding why games need to be balanced is understanding the fun that comes out of challenge. And he continues by observing, The games that keep people playing the longest are the ones that oscillate back and forth in that Maximum Fun Zone: you need to have some periods of only Mild Challenge, with ramp-ups to extreme challenge, and so forth. Spending too much time in "Boring" or "Frustrating" leads players to leave the game.

Nobody is disputing his presentation on game theory. Why? Because it is, after all, game theory and (although presented in a simplified way) fairly and accurately portrayed.

What I have disputed is that this matter of game theory has any bearing on the replies of people to posts on unbalance in DDO. I have, in fact, said:


You thoroughly avoid showing that there are genuine imbalances in the game. That means, by implication, that either you are unaware of any or there are none. Regardless, there are only 3 types of imbalances that can exist.

1. Exploits -- results from faulty code, the use of which is prohibited, the solution to which is two fold: a) just don't use it and b) Turbine eventually issues a fix.

2. Imagined imbalance -- results from momentary changes in the game through the release of new material that temporarily enables some characters to excel above others, the solution to which is two fold: a) just don't use it if you don't like it and b) Turbine eventually releases new material that brings other character types to the fore.

3. Real imbalance -- results from bad game design at initial release, the solution to which is two fold: a) the game breaks when the pressure becomes too great and the design flaw cannot be overcome or b) Turbine recodes the entire game to remove the fatal flaw.

I do not believe anyone posting here can find a single situation that fits the third type of imbalance. That means all imbalance is either an exploit or temporary. And, if you cannot bring yourself to wait for Turbine to mature the game then the reasonable and responsible choice is to "just don't use it" where "it" is whatever imbalance (exploit or temporary) bothers you.

Now, we already know that cforce cannot post any imbalances because he's already said he is unaware of any. You attempted to do so but they were demonstrated to be of either the exploit or imagined type. The exchange was in this post:



Here is a short list of a few key places this fallacious reasoning has been used in DDO's life. All of the following game-design problems have been defended with a cry of "Just don't use it if you don't like it"


Mod 4-7: Casters can solo Reaver, while warriors can only contribute as puzzle-solvers or cheerleaders.

Mod 5: Metamagic aoe spells melt any room of top-level mobs without needing to slow down.

Mod 7: Monk1 gives you more AC while opening the offhand for TWF.

Mod 1-8: Wounding Puncturing rapiers kill any non-boss living mob with no regard for his hp or DR.

Mod 3: An arcane caster with a stack of Heal scrolls has more HPS than a cleric using spellpoints.

Mod 3: Heavy Fort renders rogue-based mobs harmless and PC-directed crits extinct.

Mod 5: Black Abbot is unkillable without exploitive puzzle techniques.

Mod 1: Vorpal Scimitars kill on a 15-20, or 8-20 on your 4th swing.


If you think about what it would take for a player to enforce "Just don't use it" against all of those problems, the fallacy of that argument should be apparent.

Oh, just nonsense!

In the real world there are jobs that some people can do that others can't, that are easier if you have the tool designed for the task instead of the tool in your tool box, or where you need to understand how the system works in order to know how to solve the problem at hand.

There is no reason that in a fantasy world that these same things cannot or should not apply.

So what if there is content that casters solo that warriors don't? I routinely solo WW with L1 warriors and never do so with L1 casters. Why, because it is easy with warriors and darned near impossible with casters -- at least for me.

So what if area of effect spells melt off top-level mobs? The oddest thing to me when I first started playing DDO was seeing that fireball didn't affect party members. But, it is a game design choice and I don't find it odd any more. So what if this is more effective than sending in the melees to do the job? In real life we are always looking for the best solutions to problems. In the military we often choose black-ops over conventional forces -- and for a reason. Again, why shouldn't a fantasy game mirror real life?

So what if an arcane with heal scrolls has more HPS than a cleric with mana? This is an apples-to-oranges comparison and I wonder what the real truth is if the cleric has the stack of heal scrolls. But, that aside, I've never seen a LFM up "seeking arcane with heal scrolls, cleric will do if we have to take them."

So what if WoP or vorpal or some other weapon combo kills things efficiently? Why do you care? Does it affect you? Does it make you lose some self-worth? Does it cost you the bragging rights for most kills? When the weapon effects are not working as intended they get modified in later releases. So much of your argument in this area is already overcome by events as the changes have already been made.

So what if mobs have heavy fort? Player characters have it. Why wouldn't the bad guys?

Lastly, why "enforce" a decision to not use X -- whatever X represents? It is a personal choice. Like any personal choice it isn't our responsibility to enforce it in others. It is only our duty to enforce it in ourself.

And, to the list of unbalance types, this is what cforce had to say:


Ah, now we're getting somewhere. First of all, I wouldn't personally ever refer to an exploit as a 'balance issue', although I understand that line has been seen as blurry in the past. But, to pick a historical example, using the 10% speed boost from Tempest is not something anyone could have ever called an "exploit"!

So yes, it's the "at this moment" type of problem that I'm talking about. Hopefully Turbine continues to identify and rectify balance problems, and all problems in the future continue to be "at this moment" problems. That being said, when people are raising balance issues in the forums, they are doing it because they're hoping to provide feedback to the development team!

If you're coming at it from the standpoint, "Turbine will correctly identify and fix all balance issues without any player input", and as such, players should only worry about their own immediate play impact -- I would agree with your logic, but disagree with the premise that players providing feedback on what is *currently* out of balance in the game isn't valued by Turbine.

Now, we have narrowed down the definition of what a balance issue is using cforce's own words. They are things that exist, to use his words, "at this moment"!

And here is where the problem lies. Things that are temporary imbalances are always going to exist in any game. No matter how hard you try, you cannot eliminate them. And, when you add tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands of players to a game all at the same time -- those imbalances are going to stand out.

Well then, what to do, what to do? Well, we can take the patented Angelus_dead approach and suggest immediate nerfs. But, that doesn't necessarily fit into the planned progress for the game. Monk splash, nerf it. Tempest AC, nerf it. Will that change the balance -- no question. Is it fair to the players who are using it and having "maximum fun" as a result? No.

So the only responsible answer to these "at this moment" issues is to tell players to be responsible. If it creates a problem and affects your fun then don't use X -- whatever X represents. Instead wait on Turbine to complete the ongoing design of the game.

If we are really loyal to Turbine and to DDO we owe it to them to allow the game to mature. Thus far the development team has done tons of things that I don't like. That doesn't make them wrong. It just means they have implimented solutions to balance issues that did not fit my personal agenda.

But, here is the strange thing. Within the context of the game the changes have always worked out. So, the best advice anyone could have given me about my complaints is this: Stop your whining. If it bothers you that much then don't do it.

It is true in life and it is true in DDO.

[Leyoni]

One final point.

When there is a genuine issue with the game then telling Turbine IS the solution. Not telling them how to fix it, telling them.

Example: Tempest AC works all of the time instead of only when using two weapons.

Proposed solutions: Complete nerf eliminating the AC, turn it into a shield bonus, turn it into an untyped bonus that works correctly like two-weapon defense.

Actual solution: A feat bonus that only works when fighting with two weapons.

Gee, guess what -- Turbine was able to find the solution without our help. All they needed to know was that there was a problem.

Same goes for any other element of the game -- whether game imbalancing or just game mechanics that are not working right. Inform Turbine. Let them do their job.

[cforce]

Leyoni, I think we're going to have to just go back to the "just going in circles" point.

A few posts up, you attempted to cite many things I've said, and then paraphrase them. However, when paraphrasing, you changed the meaning slightly, to make your point. When you're restating, though, you're not actually correct! For example,


Now, cforce starts with ...[snip]... and then states that there is not a game balance problem in DDO.

Except that's not true. I've never stated that I think there is not a problem, and in fact there *are* a few things I'm concerned about. The quote that you were pointing to is:


I'm not claiming (here, anyway) that there is a game balance problem in DDO.

There's a big difference between me saying, "There is not a balance problem." and "I'm not saying there is a balance problem."

You've done this quite a bit; I hope you're just simply misinterpreting statements and not intentionally twisting words. Actaully, I assume the former, since this hasn't devolved into a flame war :). But, from where I sit, you've subtly mis-stated a *lot* of what I've said in this way.

But, let me assume you're not making subtle changes intentionally, which leads me back to the earlier revelation we had that we think the forums are for fundamentally different things.



Gee, guess what -- Turbine was able to find the solution without our help. All they needed to know was that there was a problem.

Same goes for any other element of the game -- whether game imbalancing or just game mechanics that are not working right. Inform Turbine. Let them do their job.

I've got to wonder if this is just a problem of context. Let's imagine two different posters with different world-views:

"Yeloni": Believes the development team will correct balance problems on their own terms, and that forum discussion isn't valuable.

"fCorce": Believe that forum dialogue is useful at helping devs identify and solve balance problems.

So, a thread goes like this:

fCorce: Such-and-such is too powerful, we have a game-balance problem, here.

Yeloni [thinks]: Hm, maybe it is a problem, maybe not, but its not up to us to decide. If it *really* is a problem, the devs will identify fix it. Until then, just don't use it if it's making the game less fun for you. If it really is a problem, the devs will make everyone else stop using it, too! If they don't agree, then you're just trying to make the game fun for yourself.

Yeloni [says]: Just don't use it, then.

fCorce [thinks]: Yeloni is suggesting "Just don't use it" is how to fix a balance problem? That won't work!

fCorce [says]: <something along the lines of my OP, except in the context of a specific problem>

I think these are circles we're going around in, here. As the kind of person who thinks the forums are a place to give feedback/suggestions to the development team, fCorce interprets Yeloni's "Just don't use it" as "a solution to this balance problem that the devs could move forward with is 'Just don't use it'", because that's what fCorce thinks the forums are for. However, from Yeloni's perspective, the forums *aren't* for that kind of discussion, and he instead offers fCorce *personal* in-game advice on what he should do until the devs decide their own solution, independent of forum input.

Are these our circles?

[Leyoni]

"Yeloni": Believes the development team will correct balance problems on their own terms, and that forum discussion isn't valuable.

"fCorce": Believe that forum dialogue is useful at helping devs identify and solve balance problems.

So, a thread goes like this:

fCorce: Such-and-such is too powerful, we have a game-balance problem, here.

Yeloni [thinks]: Hm, maybe it is a problem, maybe not, but its not up to us to decide. If it *really* is a problem, the devs will identify fix it. Until then, just don't use it if it's making the game less fun for you. If it really is a problem, the devs will make everyone else stop using it, too! If they don't agree, then you're just trying to make the game fun for yourself.

Yeloni [says]: Just don't use it, then.

fCorce [thinks]: Yeloni is suggesting "Just don't use it" is how to fix a balance problem? That won't work!

fCorce [says]: <something along the lines of my OP, except in the context of a specific problem>

I think these are circles we're going around in, here.

<snip>

Are these our circles?

No. I see nothing wrong with pointing out to the developers a problem, real or imagined, with DDO.

I believe that real problems don't need our help to fix them and that discussions about fixes are actually counter-productive because there are multiple solutions and posts end up being constant repetitions of people's points-of-view rather than producing collectively agreed upon solutions*.

I believe that imagined problems are just that. Imagined. This means they don't really exist. In this case rather than see the forum threads fill up with all of the angst of different points-of-view it is more appropriate to respond with "just don't use it".

Please note that you have indicated that you are discussing "at the moment" imbalances. That means those will be rectified as the game matures. And, please note that you have yet to identify a single imbalance -- so while you are discussing imbalances you have never provided even one example where "don't use it" fails as a response. Lastly, I'm sure that you are aware that something that is broken (by which I mean that it is not working properly) is not the same as imbalance.

*I actually believe that this is impossible to achieve. Instead those who shout the loudest or have the biggest draw of supporters appear to represent the majority of players. That is a problem. As I noted by way of example, Tempest AC was broken (not imbalancing, broken) and there were many solutions. The overwhelming majority of posts favored converting the bonus to a shield bonus or eliminating it entirely. These both are fundamentally wrong yet no other voice could be heard because alternatives were shouted down. Ultimately it was announced that it would become a shield bonus. Yet, today, it is a feat bonus -- which it should always have been and was originally, only fixed to work properly. We wasted lots of time, and ill will in some cases, debating the point and all for no purpose. It was sufficient to simply point out that the situation was broken and continue on with life.

[Hafeal]

Please define "balance" as you see it?

Dex was here. :cool:




Ah, this just might be the crux of where these arguments have gone ... :p

[Leyoni]

Well, truth be told I never responded to Big-Dex's question. But, I do believe that Hafeal is correct, how we define balance is important.

cforce described it in the initial post this way:


Now, where does balance come in? Well, the challenge varies based on whether or not you are using the more powerful items in the game. (Or, whether you have the best build, etc.) What this means is that there's some amount of distance between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" on the challenge scale. In an ideal case, it looks like this:


Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-------------<<<<Haves Zone>>>>-------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------<<<Have Nots Zone>>>----------------

By scaling the difficulty level, the dev team can move *everyone* on the spectrum.

Note the last part of cforce's statement about scaling the difficulty level.

In DDO I would propose that balance looks like this:


Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating
-*Elite Mode*-------------------<<<<<<<<<<<<Haves Zone>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------
-*Hard Mode*----------<<<<<<<<<<<<Have Some Zone>>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------
-*Normal Mode*------<<<<<<<<<<<Have Nots Zone>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------

Note that the "Have Somes" will hit just about dead center in the "maximum fun zone" while the "Haves" are a bit towards the Impossible side and the "Have Nots" a bit to the Win Button side. And, this presumes the same quest done at level but scaled by difficulty setting.

But, while that is GAME balance it fails to account for character balance. This is a more difficult area to deal with. Certainly as it stands now there are character classes (and multiclasses) that out perform others that we would nominally consider to be equivalent. This is nowhere more evident than in the ranger/monk multiclass which we can all agree is far superior to any other class in AC potential and melee combat potential -- often in the same character.

This does not imbalance the game but it does imbalance party composition and player choice given the other melee options. This impacts on fun for some people -- particularly for those who cling to the belief that a heavily armored fighter or paladin ought to have a higher AC than a lightly armored, shieldless ranger/monk. While this is obviously prejudice and stereotyping based on our western cultural heritage it is, nevertheless, an often held and expressed opinion. It has always been difficult in D&D to understand that AC and HP do not represent actual armor or wounds taken but all of the skill involved in avoiding being struck and the various factors surrounding blows that have negligible real effect.

So, from a pure game perspective there is nothing illogical in the ranger/monk having the extraordinary AC.

Even so, this impact on player fun is important. The solutions are many. Among those suggested are nerfing the multiclass build, nerfing specific aspects of the build, or introducing new rules applicable to DDO that are not part of the core D&D rules.

The answer, of course, is for Turbine to continue character development and to roll out skills, enhancements and equipment that benefit the other character classes. A bit of imbalance is good because it defines the classes. But it has to be of the +/- type: for the good thing that comes along there is some drawback. In this way no class is obviously superior (including multiclasses) but all builds become viable and, depending on party composition, key factors in achieving success.

IMO this is the only continuing example of an imbalance in the game. And, it is one that I hope to see addressed in some very significant ways with DDO:EU.

[cforce]

No. I see nothing wrong with pointing out to the developers a problem, real or imagined, with DDO.

I believe that real problems don't need our help to fix them and that discussions about fixes are actually counter-productive because there are multiple solutions and posts end up being constant repetitions of people's points-of-view rather than producing collectively agreed upon solutions*.

I believe that imagined problems are just that. Imagined. This means they don't really exist. In this case rather than see the forum threads fill up with all of the angst of different points-of-view it is more appropriate to respond with "just don't use it".

Please note that you have indicated that you are discussing "at the moment" imbalances. That means those will be rectified as the game matures. And, please note that you have yet to identify a single imbalance -- so while you are discussing imbalances you have never provided even one example where "don't use it" fails as a response. Lastly, I'm sure that you are aware that something that is broken (by which I mean that it is not working properly) is not the same as imbalance.

*I actually believe that this is impossible to achieve. Instead those who shout the loudest or have the biggest draw of supporters appear to represent the majority of players. That is a problem. As I noted by way of example, Tempest AC was broken (not imbalancing, broken) and there were many solutions. The overwhelming majority of posts favored converting the bonus to a shield bonus or eliminating it entirely. These both are fundamentally wrong yet no other voice could be heard because alternatives were shouted down. Ultimately it was announced that it would become a shield bonus. Yet, today, it is a feat bonus -- which it should always have been and was originally, only fixed to work properly. We wasted lots of time, and ill will in some cases, debating the point and all for no purpose. It was sufficient to simply point out that the situation was broken and continue on with life.

Huh. I'm not sure what else to say. You started by disagreeing with my previous post, but then went on an explained a position that, as far as I can tell, is matches up with what I was stating. I feel like we just had this conversation:

Me: "So, this cue ball is black, right?"
Leyoni: "No, it's black."

I guess I give up. I think I understand your point, and it doesn't contradict my OP. All attempts to dig into why you *think* it contradicts my OP have led to you posting extensively, but I haven't been able to ferret out anything that actually does, other than:

(1) You think forum input on fixing balance problems isn't useful.
(2) You think that there has never been a "real" balance problem, because...
(3) ...in hindsight, developers will fix all balance problems without our input, rendering them "at the moment" problems.

You seem to be pretty convinced that you've said something else that contradicts my OP, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is. Sorry!

[Leyoni]

Huh. I'm not sure what else to say. You started by disagreeing with my previous post, but then went on an explained a position that, as far as I can tell, is matches up with what I was stating. I feel like we just had this conversation:

Me: "So, this cue ball is black, right?"
Leyoni: "No, it's black."

I guess I give up. I think I understand your point, and it doesn't contradict my OP. All attempts to dig into why you *think* it contradicts my OP have led to you posting extensively, but I haven't been able to ferret out anything that actually does, other than:

(1) You think forum input on fixing balance problems isn't useful.
(2) You think that there has never been a "real" balance problem, because...
(3) ...in hindsight, developers will fix all balance problems without our input, rendering them "at the moment" problems.

You seem to be pretty convinced that you've said something else that contradicts my OP, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is. Sorry!

Your OP is meant as a response to all you say "just don't use it" and to demonstrate that this is not an appropriate response to balance problems. You say so right in your original post, There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" Rather than continue to reply to it directly in threads where it crops up, I'm going to try to explain the problem once, here, and then just start linking to here when it comes up.

You seem to have missed this in the post that you quote, I believe that imagined problems are just that. Imagined. This means they don't really exist. In this case rather than see the forum threads fill up with all of the angst of different points-of-view it is more appropriate to respond with "just don't use it".

I have tried to explain that I understand what you are trying to convey. But, I have also tried to explain that "just don't use it" is a legitimate response. You, OTOH, have said that "just don't use it" is a problem -- in the title of your post you call it a fallacy.

Maybe I have misunderstood you. Were you trying to say that "just don't use it" is a reasonable reply? Because calling it a fallacy and a problem doesn't seem to do that. Now, if that is still confusing then I don't know what to say.

Your position: "Just don't use it" is a fallacy because game design says build for maximum fun and imbalance must be fixed.

My position: "Just don't use it" is a legitimate response because game design says build for maximum fun and REAL imbalance must be fixed, but PERCEIVED imbalance does not.

It is this distinction between what is real and what is either temporary (due to DDO not being completely matured & DDO being delivered in modules) or imagined (what I've termed perceived just now). A real imbalance, something that needs developer action or it forever breaks the game cannot be answered with "just don't use it" -- it has to be fixed.

A temporary imbalance CAN and MUST be answered with "just don't use it" because the rebalancing is coming in later modules. The statement goes like this: Yes, at the moment the game is out of balance because X is more powerful than it should be. But, it will change with a future module as Y catches up. If you are really bothered by the imbalance then just don't use X.

An imagined imbalance is just a mind trick. Since it is imagined it is not real. When it isn't real you can try to explain that to the poster (good luck with that). Or, you can say, Well, in that case just don't use X if it bothers you. That is just as legitimate a response as anything else you might say.

I cannot see how you could have started out the thread talking about the fallacy of "just don't use it" and then post that I've explained a position that you agree with when I post rather than see the forum threads fill up with all of the angst of different points-of-view it is more appropriate to respond with "just don't use it".

Lastly, to correct your understanding of what I've written:

(1) I think forum input on fixing balance problems isn't useful.
(2) I think that there has never been a "real" balance problem because nobody can describe one -- not you, not Angelus_dead, not anyone else who has posted to this thread.
(3) I do not think that in hindsight, developers will fix all balance problems without our input, rendering them "at the moment" problems. This is because "at the moment" imbalances are not the result of hindsight but of FORESIGHT. Developers already know that there will be a temporary imbalance. They plan to reestablish balance with later releases -- developmental information that we do not know about.
(4) I think that the "at the moment" issues would be minimized if the developers shared more about future plans. For example, Tempest would not have been seen as so imbalancing had players known about Kensai (or other melee class PREs) and known that they were under development.
(5) I think that there is a difference between broken and not balanced. Tempest AC wasn't a balance problem. It was broken. When something does not work correctly the developers need to know. I trust them to find a solution that works.

If you don't see how this differs from what you originally posted then I don't know what else to say. :(

[Samadhi]

.
(2) I think that there has never been a "real" balance problem because nobody can describe one -- not you, not Angelus_dead, not anyone else who has posted to this thread.


I have got to call BS on this. Over the past two years (didn't see it much pre-gianthold, but that could be bad memory) - there have been piles of threads describing real game imbalances. Either you are being purposefully blind, or are writing all of these well designed threads off with non-answers (example: "well, it's not really an imbalance, because the Dev's have a super secret plan that is going to make it all better..." or calling them "imagined" with no explanation of how it is imagined...)

Granted, personally I don't think the game is horribly imbalanced right now. That is an opinion, though, and I certainly don't have the time or inclination to assert it is fact without evidence. My recommendation is to take a similar approach instead of being deliberately obstuse towards a well thought out and well explained post from the OP.

[cforce]

That's an excellent summary, Leyoni, and nothing you posted there surprised me; and again, I thought I did a decent job of summarizing this position before. But, at the risk of starting another circle :):



You seem to have missed this in the post that you quote, I believe that imagined problems are just that. Imagined. This means they don't really exist. In this case rather than see the forum threads fill up with all of the angst of different points-of-view it is more appropriate to respond with "just don't use it".

<snip>

Your position: "Just don't use it" is a fallacy because game design says build for maximum fun and imbalance must be fixed.

My position: "Just don't use it" is a legitimate response because game design says build for maximum fun and REAL imbalance must be fixed, but PERCEIVED imbalance does not.



I definitely understand this point. I tried to point out a while back that this isn't really productive dialogue.

As an analogy, let's say I believe in global warming, and you don't. If I'm trying to make a case that it exists, and you reply, "let's wait a while and see what happens", while that's a good strategy from your point of view, it doesn't move the discussion forward, because it's disastrous from my point of view. If you're interested in discussing the issue, countering with evidence that global warming is a myth is appropriate; "let's wait a while" is just another way of saying, "pfffft -- you're just wrong. stop complaining".

Moving back to our forum discussions: if you believe someone is raising an imaginary problem, trying to make a case that the problem is not real can be productive dialogue. Or make a case that the problem is likely a temporary situation that the devs already have a plan to resolve.

My point, this whole time, has been that "Just don't use it" would never solve a real balance problem.



It is this distinction between what is real and what is either temporary (due to DDO not being completely matured & DDO being delivered in modules) or imagined (what I've termed perceived just now). A real imbalance, something that needs developer action or it forever breaks the game cannot be answered with "just don't use it" -- it has to be fixed.

Why am I starting to feel like we're in violent agreement? This is pretty much the thesis of my OP. It seems like the only disagreement, then, is whether or not there has ever been a "real balance problem" in DDO? I would argue there have been, but that they have been fixed.



A temporary imbalance CAN and MUST be answered with "just don't use it" because the rebalancing is coming in later modules. The statement goes like this: Yes, at the moment the game is out of balance because X is more powerful than it should be. But, it will change with a future module as Y catches up. If you are really bothered by the imbalance then just don't use X.

Here's where I can't understand what you're trying to get at. All "real" problems will, *eventually*, be addressed by the devs in future modules. At the point it is fixed by a new module, it *becomes* a temporary problem.

And this is where your logic loses me. You seem to be recommending different courses of action for a "real" balance problem, for which you agree "just don't use it" is not appropriate, and a "temporary" balance problem, for which it is appropriate. However, the act of *fixing* the real problem causes it to become a temporary problem, and thus creates a paradox. Was it inappropriate to say "just don't use it" before the developers had a plan on how to address it, but as soon as the developers address and fix it, it retroactively becomes OK? This is where your argument seems to contradict itself.

[Leyoni]

I have got to call BS on this. Over the past two years (didn't see it much pre-gianthold, but that could be bad memory) - there have been piles of threads describing real game imbalances.


It seems like the only disagreement, then, is whether or not there has ever been a "real balance problem" in DDO? I would argue there have been, but that they have been fixed..

Both of these make the same point and I again ask, name one. Remember that the distinction we have made in this post between a real game balance problem and a "of the moment" or temporary one is this: A real game balance problem is one that makes the game, eventually, unplayable because it shifts the haves too far towards the "easy button" and the have nots too far towards the "impossible." This is clearly indicated by cforce's original post and cforce has agreed to this definition in subsequent postings.

There has never been this type of an imbalance. If there has been then I continue to challenge you, name it.

Samadhi, I agree that there have been piles of threads discussing imbalances. But are they of the type that cforce and I are talking about when we say "real" imbalance? Or, are they of the type that cforce and I are talking about when we say "of the moment" or temporary imbalance? I strongly believe that they are of the later. But, if you can identify one that is of the former type please post what it is.


Here's where I can't understand what you're trying to get at. All "real" problems will, *eventually*, be addressed by the devs in future modules. At the point it is fixed by a new module, it *becomes* a temporary problem.

AAARRRGGGGGH!!!!! NO, for goodness sake, no!

The problems are not real balance problems if they will be addressed in future modules. They don't become temporary, they ARE temporary. Again, the example of Tempest ranger.

Tempest ranger enhancement makes all other melee types pretty close to irrelevent in the current game. There is some role for intimitanks and some role for barbarians, but the melee role is pretty much locked up by Tempest rangers.

This occurred because rangers had their PRE released before any other melee class. The PREs for other melee classes have not yet been released even though they have been planned for (for a long time I might add). So, at the moment there is an imbalance in the game.

But that imbalance has always been temporary. This was pointed out several times in threads complaining about how Tempest ranger was a balance problem.

So, how do you solve such problems? You solve them by pointing out that they are temporary. This is what cforce is suggesting when he writes


Moving back to our forum discussions: if you believe someone is raising an imaginary problem, trying to make a case that the problem is not real can be productive dialogue. Or make a case that the problem is likely a temporary situation that the devs already have a plan to resolve.

Only, this is never sufficient. When this is pointed out to posters they don't respond with "I understand that, ok, I may not be happy about the present imbalance but I understand that it will be resolved as the game matures." Instead they completely ignore posts saying that the imbalance is a temporary situation and advocate for changes now.

The "changes now" mentality ignores that the thing creating the imbalance is intended as part of the game and is temporary in nature. It ignores that many players are not concerned over the temporary imbalance and are perfectly fine with the game. It ignores the fact that "changes now" will not fix the imbalance but will adversely affect the other players for whom there is no issue. But, mostly, it ignores that the imbalance is not "real" as we are using the word "real" in this thread.

So how do you respond to someone that refuses to be convinced by reasoned posts that explain the imbalance is temporary. What do you say to people who have already convinced themselves that a fix is needed? How do you convince them to simply relax and let the developers continue to develop the game?

You don't. This is obvious with cforce's continued postings in response to me. He clearly believes that his original post not only shows game theory but that it also shows how "just don't use it" is a fallacy. I have quoted his own words, caused him to agree to definitions, even seen him say that he is confused because what I post is what he means -- as he says


Why am I starting to feel like we're in violent agreement? This is pretty much the thesis of my OP.

Even cforce, at this point, doesn't understand that the thesis of his original post is that game theory makes "just don't use it" a fallacy. And, he doesn't understand that our difference is not one of agreement but of disagreement because I maintain that "just don't use it" is the only reply that is effective.

People who believe that a "of the moment", temporary imbalance must be fixed now or DDO will come crashing down are wrong. Period. Really, should be the end of the discussion.

But, even when told that, even when told that the developers will retool the balance with upcoming releases, even when told by Turbine that the item under discussion is working within the context of the rules as adapted to DDO and working as intended -- even with all of that information the posters cannot be convinced.

So what do you tell them? You tell them what you would about sex, drugs, pick your hot-button issue. You tell them that if it is bothersome to them then don't use it. You tell them that change is not going to happen so they must exert self control and make choices for themselves -- choices that they must make regardless of what others are doing.

As parents often do, you tell the posters, "If everyone jumped off a bridge would you do it too?" The only legitimate reply to temporary imbalance -- imbalances that are real in the sense that they exist, just not in the sense used for "real" in this thread of causing the entire game to collapse -- is to remind people that they still exercise free choice and they are responsible for their own actions. The only reasonable reply is to remind them, "just don't use it."

[Samadhi]

Both of these make the same point and I again ask, name one. Remember that the distinction we have made in this post between a real game balance problem and a "of the moment" or temporary one is this: A real game balance problem is one that makes the game, eventually, unplayable because it shifts the haves too far towards the "easy button" and the have nots too far towards the "impossible." This is clearly indicated by cforce's original post and cforce has agreed to this definition in subsequent postings.

There has never been this type of an imbalance. If there has been then I continue to challenge you, name it.

Samadhi, I agree that there have been piles of threads discussing imbalances. But are they of the type that cforce and I are talking about when we say "real" imbalance? Or, are they of the type that cforce and I are talking about when we say "of the moment" or temporary imbalance? I strongly believe that they are of the later. But, if you can identify one that is of the former type please post what it is.



Example:
Caster damage output potential vs. mob HP in gianthold era (largely tied into metamagic changes and mana pool increases). For those that remember, casters went from a reasonably niche class to completely obsoleting other classes due to low mob HP and high damage potential. This was not only a class imbalance, but a total game imbalance. Now, there was no distinction between have's and have not's in this circumstance, and this was part of the problem as well. Anyone could roll up a caster and with minimal skill firewall their way through any endgame quest to victory. The game had shifted too far towards the "easy" button. Currently, casters are still powerful, but they again require game skill to be powerful, and are once again somewhat niche compared to the sustainable DPS of melees.

To be honest, the game has more avoided this problem then fixed it.
1) Current endgame is mostly immune to fire and therefore immune to the biggest offender of firewall.
2) Mob HP were increased drastically. This actually had a good part in restoring class balance, by allowing tanks with wounders to step up and compete in killing ability. I am distinctly worried that this might shift again with upcoming w/p nerfs though.
3) Firewall's no longer stack preventing an instakill "spot"

I believe this meets all of your criteria for a "real" imbalance...

[Leyoni]

Example:
Caster damage output potential vs. mob HP in gianthold era (largely tied into metamagic changes and mana pool increases). For those that remember, casters went from a reasonably niche class to completely obsoleting other classes due to low mob HP and high damage potential. This was not only a class imbalance, but a total game imbalance. Now, there was no distinction between have's and have not's in this circumstance, and this was part of the problem as well. Anyone could roll up a caster and with minimal skill firewall their way through any endgame quest to victory. The game had shifted too far towards the "easy" button. Currently, casters are still powerful, but they again require game skill to be powerful, and are once again somewhat niche compared to the sustainable DPS of melees.

To be honest, the game has more avoided this problem then fixed it.
1) Current endgame is mostly immune to fire and therefore immune to the biggest offender of firewall.
2) Mob HP were increased drastically. This actually had a good part in restoring class balance, by allowing tanks with wounders to step up and compete in killing ability. I am distinctly worried that this might shift again with upcoming w/p nerfs though.
3) Firewall's no longer stack preventing an instakill "spot"

I believe this meets all of your criteria for a "real" imbalance...

You might be right.

I would ask this question first, however: Was this what Turbine developers intended or was this an unintended consequence?

Why is that an important question? IMO it is important because it shows whether the game was working as intended with game breaking impact or if the game was not working as intended.

If it was not working as intended then the imbalance does not fit the criteria. Instead it is an example of a broken game mechanic. Broken game mechanics, by definition, are not balance issues.

If it was working as intended then the imbalance DOES fit the criteria and player input to Turbine was warranted. And, while "just don't use it" would still suffice to prevent the event it IS an insufficient response to the problem.

The next question I would ask would be: Did this break the entire game or only some parts of it? This question is important because it reveals if the imbalance is limited in scope, trivializing only some of the quests, or if it is pervasive -- thereby threatening the entire game.

Neither of these situations negates the imbalance (presuming it was an intended effect) but the answer does impact the scope. Again, "just don't use it" would not be a sufficient answer in either case. But the ultimate solution is affected by this consideration.

IMO (and as I recall that time period) the imbalance was an unintended consequence of the changes to casters. That means it was not really a balance issue -- it was a mechanics issue. And, I have already clearly said that in the area of broken mechanics the right response from the players is to point these out to Turbine.

[cforce]

***Warning: Meta-critique***



You don't. This is obvious with cforce's continued postings in response to me. He clearly believes that his original post not only shows game theory but that it also shows how "just don't use it" is a fallacy. I have quoted his own words, caused him to agree to definitions, even seen him say that he is confused because what I post is what he means -- as he says...

<snip>

Even cforce, at this point, doesn't understand that the thesis of his original post is that game theory makes "just don't use it" a fallacy. And, he doesn't understand that our difference is not one of agreement but of disagreement because I maintain that "just don't use it" is the only reply that is effective.

Leyoni, a word of caution, here. The discussion we've been having so far has been, I believe, pretty productive. However, I'm getting a bit of an "ego unchecked" vibe from this last post.

1. I'm confident I understand the intent and meaning of my *own* post better than you, just as I'm sure you understand your meaning better than I do.
2. I've been deliberately using the neutral interpretation "I'm confused by your posts" rather than the accusatory "Your post makes no sense" to try to continue to work toward a shared understanding. If you start trying to use this to imply that your head is the only head that's clear in this discussion, you'll find that my tone will change.

Please, let's continue to keep this a dialogue, and not turn it into a flame war? This last post of yours was a step in the wrong direction.

***Now, back to the actual discussion.***

OK, your meaning about "temporary imbalances" vs. "real imbalances that are subsequently fixed" is clearer. I've got a few examples that I'd raise to your challenge of "name one", but my fear is that you've created a circular definition that allows you to dismiss any example as possibly not being real by asking, "what was the developer intent", which, of course, we cannot know. I tried to create an "unambiguously poor balance example" with the Raid-boss vorpal, but that did not seem sufficient.

So, here's my bargain: if you can provide *us* a hypothetical, made-up example of a balance problem that you would agree is "real", I'll respond with examples from DDO's past that I think would also match your template.

However, I do need some evidence that you're not simply taking a position on the definition of "real" vs. "temporary" that makes the statement "all past problems are temporary" a tautology.

[Leyoni]

Leyoni, a word of caution, here. The discussion we've been having so far has been, I believe, pretty productive. However, I'm getting a bit of an "ego unchecked" vibe from this last post.

<snip>

OK, your meaning about "temporary imbalances" vs. "real imbalances that are subsequently fixed" is clearer. I've got a few examples that I'd raise to your challenge of "name one", but my fear is that you've created a circular definition that allows you to dismiss any example as possibly not being real by asking, "what was the developer intent", which, of course, we cannot know. I tried to create an "unambiguously poor balance example" with the Raid-boss vorpal, but that did not seem sufficient.

So, here's my bargain: if you can provide *us* a hypothetical, made-up example of a balance problem that you would agree is "real", I'll respond with examples from DDO's past that I think would also match your template.

However, I do need some evidence that you're not simply taking a position on the definition of "real" vs. "temporary" that makes the statement "all past problems are temporary" a tautology.

Sorry cforce, I don't think it is my obligation to provide a hypothetical situation. I think it is your obligation to provide an example of game imbalance -- past or present -- where the imbalance was not:

1. Temporary because planned updates would restore the balance (ie, Tempest) or,
2. Inadvertant because a change in game mechanics had an unexpected effect (ie, arcanes dominate Gianthold), or
3. Caused by bad coding (ie, Tempest AC).

Is there something that has been part of the game from the outset that pushes DDO to the breaking point? I don't think that there is if we are confining ourselves to the issue of balance within the maximum fun zone. Is there something that was changed because of poster input because it would have caused the game to break? I am not aware of anything. But, perhaps, you are.

There are two items that I think might fit this scenario right now. One is dodge bonus (or broader, stacking bonuses of the same type but different + values) and the other is lack of continued development and routine release of new material.

In the case of stacking bonuses it appears that this is an intended effect -- mostly because the blurbs read that bonuses of the same value do not stack but those of different values do. This is, IMO, a design flaw because it is the primary factor in unarmored AC being higher than armored AC. While posters fixate on monk spalsh or Tempest enhancements, the real problem is the stackable dodge bonus.

And, it is not just dodge that is a problem. Stackable stat ability bonuses are also a potential problem. The resolution thus far has been to code higher DCs or to raise the CR of monsters. That effectively shifts the difficulty too far to the impossible side for have nots. It may, therefore, be a legitimate balance problem.

Lack of continued development and routine release of new material might also be a legitimate balance problem. There is another thread on this topic that essentially says, "I'm bored." Turbine's decision to release DDO:EU rather than to release new content every 2-3 months contributes to this and is a corporate decision. The focus on raids rather than dungeon crawls might also contribute to the problem. Regardless, when the haves hit the boredom phase then there probably is a balance problem.

In neither of these situations would I suggest that "just don't use it" provides a sufficient response. In the former case this is because without using the stacking bonuses some content becomes undoable. In the latter "just don't use it" comes to mean "just don't play DDO" and that is counter productive.

Now, outside my two examples (not hypothetical) can you post any example of similar potential to break DDO?

[Samadhi]

Sorry cforce, I don't think it is my obligation to provide a hypothetical situation. I think it is your obligation to provide an example of game imbalance --

ROFL dude - Cforce is giving you far more benefit of the doubt than he should be, IMO. Your overly verbose analysis's aside - you are still using a form of logic that makes you automatically right, since you are righting off all arguments as unproveable because we do not know the dev's intentions. Peace dude, hope you are a lawyer, you would be quite good at it :D Cforce came up with an easy out for you to prove yourself to be reasonable.

[Leyoni]

ROFL dude - Cforce is giving you far more benefit of the doubt than he should be, IMO. Your overly verbose analysis's aside - you are still using a form of logic that makes you automatically right, since you are righting off all arguments as unproveable because we do not know the dev's intentions. Peace dude, hope you are a lawyer, you would be quite good at it :D Cforce came up with an easy out for you to prove yourself to be reasonable.

Sorry to disagree Samadhi. We do know developer intent many times. I provided a real example of one.

We also know real examples where the players have thought something wasn't working as intended but the answer came back from Turbine that things WERE working as intended (Abbot).

It is not my responsibility to go find examples of game imbalance. It is not my responsibility to provide a hypothetical situation. I'm not the one claiming that "just don't use it" is a fallacy.

I have illustrated why "just don't use it" is a legitimate response to known temporary imbalance (Tempest) and to unintended imbalance (casters in Gianthold*). I've agreed that when the problem is a coding one and the game mechanic is broken that "just don't use it" isn't the answer.

I gave a current, part of the game, example where knowing intent isn't an issue. I gave another where it is moot.

All I've challenged cforce and his supporters to do is to provide some of their own.

Since you only have the time to laugh it appears that you are unable to do so. Let's see if cforce does better.

Edit: *Note that with this example I agree that it might be a legitimate example but that as I remember that time it was an unintended consequence -- that the game changes that created the situation were not meant to have had that consequence -- and that Turbine responded that way. I could, absolutely, be remembering this wrong. If I am then please provide support for this being a real balance example.

[cforce]

I have illustrated why "just don't use it" is a legitimate response to known temporary imbalance (Tempest) and to unintended imbalance (casters in Gianthold*). I've agreed that when the problem is a coding one and the game mechanic is broken that "just don't use it" isn't the answer.

I think we're closing in on it, now -- no need to provide a hypothetical example when you were willing to provide an actual one! Namely, Dodge item stacking and the growing AC rift between "haves" and "have nots" creating a balance problem. I'll hold up my end of the bargain and post some other possible examples in a bit, but I'd like to just discuss this one a bit more first. It's just going to be easier to talk about example one at a time, rather than mixing 4 different discussions in the thread at once, if you don't mind.

I'm concerned that the Dodge example that you raised isn't completely clear cut. It's possible that it is a temporary imbalance; that more items or other changes are being rolled out in Mod 9 or Mod 10 that level the playing field. How can you be certain that this example is possibly a real problem?

[Leyoni]

I think we're closing in on it, now -- no need to provide a hypothetical example when you were willing to provide an actual one! Namely, Dodge item stacking and the growing AC rift between "haves" and "have nots" creating a balance problem. I'll hold up my end of the bargain and post some other possible examples in a bit, but I'd like to just discuss this one a bit more first. It's just going to be easier to talk about example one at a time, rather than mixing 4 different discussions in the thread at once, if you don't mind.

I'm concerned that the Dodge example that you raised isn't completely clear cut. It's possible that it is a temporary imbalance; that more items or other changes are being rolled out in Mod 9 or Mod 10 that level the playing field. How can you be certain that this example is possibly a real problem?

In the case of Tempest it should be clear that future PREs are coming. Whether Tempest remains a balance issue depends on whether the planned PREs actually reestablish other melee types as vital to the game.

I know it isn't the question you asked but it is the answer.

Stacking bonuses appear to have a dramatic impact on both playability and game design as evidenced by Turbine's past work. IMO this means it likely qualifies as imbalancing as we have defined it -- exists in real time, cannot be remedied by "just don't do it" response, affects the entire game.

The question isn't really about HOW the imbalance is addressed but WHETHER it exists. Remember that my position on this is that Turbine is free to fix a real imbalance any way they deem appropriate. Assuming the stacking bonuses ARE an imbalance then it isn't particularly important if the fix is to remove stacking or if the fix is to add new items or make other mechanics changes.

We have agreed to the following thus far:

1. Exploits are not imbalances, they are exploits. Regardless, "just don't use it" applies since that is required by the user agreement.
2. Temporary imbalances like Tempest are real but don't preclude "just don't use it" since there is a planned rebalance coming in future releases.
3. Inadvertant imbalances like overpowered firewalls are real but don't preclude "just don't use it" since other methods will suffice until the unintended effect is changed.
4. Bad coding instances like with the Tempest AC is a broken game mechanic and not an imbalance. It still needs to be fixed and "just don't use it" may be a remedy but it isn't an adequate answer.
5. The imbalance must shift the haves so far to the easy button or the have nots so far to the impossible that they won't play the game.

The question is, does the example meet these five criteria? And, regarding the final criteria, I would suggest that it does not have to be demonstrated -- it need only be reasonably likely as a consequence.

[cforce]

In the case of Tempest it should be clear that future PREs are coming. Whether Tempest remains a balance issue depends on whether the planned PREs actually reestablish other melee types as vital to the game.

I know it isn't the question you asked but it is the answer.


So, to be unambiguous, you're saying that cases that you'd categorize as "temporary imbalances" are cases where there is a clear implication on follow-up content that will normalize the balance?

I'd agree with you that Tempest vs. pre-PrE classes are good examples of this. Have there been other arguments on the forums like this around anything other than "PrE vs. non-PrE" imbalances? Or, have all "temporary imbalance" examples in the past been cases of needing to wait for the other PrEs?

Just to be clear, I haven't technically agreed to your #3 above, yet. (I may -- I just want to finish nailing down #2, first.)

[Leyoni]

So, to be unambiguous, you're saying that cases that you'd categorize as "temporary imbalances" are cases where there is a clear implication on follow-up content that will normalize the balance?

I'd agree with you that Tempest vs. pre-PrE classes are good examples of this. Have there been other arguments on the forums like this around anything other than "PrE vs. non-PrE" imbalances? Or, have all "temporary imbalance" examples in the past been cases of needing to wait for the other PrEs?

Just to be clear, I haven't technically agreed to your #3 above, yet. (I may -- I just want to finish nailing down #2, first.)

I don't know if Tempest is the only example in its category but you are correct that temporary imbalances are cases where there is a clear implication on follow-up content that will normalize the balance.

Unintended imbalaces might be candidates for "just don't use it" and they might not. It depends on if they really threaten the long-term health of the game. Regardless, they need to be fixed. So, "just don't use it" is really a way of saying "wait until it is fixed." IMO an unintended imbalance that goes unfixed shifts over to being a real balance issue (at which point we need to determine if it is game threatening or just a pain).

[Emili]

There seems to be a common argument that pops up again and again, "You think X is unbalancing? Just don't use it, and don't group with people who do!" .... ;).


Not advocating either way... to choose not to use it and to not group with those who do (or may). Is not a wise decision should 99% of the populace decide to use it.

[Leyoni]

Not advocating either way... to choose not to use it and to not group with those who do (or may). Is not a wise decision should 99% of the populace decide to use it.



Certainly. However, as we have illustrated through this rather long series of exchanges there do not appear to be very many really imbalancing things in DDO.

In fact, it has taken us 7 pages just to get to the first example (although I think I mentioned it quite a bit sooner).

And, in most instances of perceived imbalance the problem really is in perception and not in reality. So, as I've pointed out, "just don't use it" is as legitimate an answer as any other that might be given.

So, whereas the original post tried to show that "just don't use it" is a fallacy that should never be invoked we are now at the point where we have some situations where it is a legitimate response and some where it is not. And, we are now looking to cforce to give some examples where it is not.

[cforce]

So, whereas the original post tried to show that "just don't use it" is a fallacy that should never be invoked we are now at the point where we have some situations where it is a legitimate response and some where it is not. And, we are now looking to cforce to give some examples where it is not.

Hey, now -- let's not get ahead of ourselves! I'm not done with the Dodge example yet!

OK, so we seem to be resolved on one definition, that of "temporary imbalances"; of this kind of imbalance, neither of us can recall any examples other than the "Tempest Unpleasantness".

On to the "inadvertent" or "unintended" imbalances. I'm less clear on why the Dodge\Ability Stacking example is not a case of this kind of imbalance. Surely the development team wasn't intending something like, "Hey! I've got a great idea! Let's introduce items which will give great cumulative advantage to those who have them. Then we'll shift the difficulty curve to keep the game challenging for the people who have these items, and fiendishly difficult for those that do not! We're so smart!"

If the developers inadvertently got into this situation, then isn't this an unintended imbalance?

[Leyoni]

Hey, now -- let's not get ahead of ourselves! I'm not done with the Dodge example yet!

OK, so we seem to be resolved on one definition, that of "temporary imbalances"; of this kind of imbalance, neither of us can recall any examples other than the "Tempest Unpleasantness".

On to the "inadvertent" or "unintended" imbalances. I'm less clear on why the Dodge\Ability Stacking example is not a case of this kind of imbalance. Surely the development team wasn't intending something like, "Hey! I've got a great idea! Let's introduce items which will give great cumulative advantage to those who have them. Then we'll shift the difficulty curve to keep the game challenging for the people who have these items, and fiendishly difficult for those that do not! We're so smart!"

If the developers inadvertently got into this situation, then isn't this an unintended imbalance?

Clever reasoning, but no.

An inadvertent imbalance is when there is a change in game mechanics. This is what happened in the firewalls in Gianthold example that Samadhi mentioned.

The distinguishing element in these cases is that the developers go "Oops!" when it is pointed out. In the stacking bonuses situation we know that things are working as they are meant to work (again, because the blurbs tell us that this is so).

So, it is tough to argue that the stacking bonus effect was not intended and thus inadvertent.

Now, as to the developers not really understanding the long-term consequences. That is something different. In some cases it might be due to inexperience. In others incompetence. Since I don't really know the people responsible it is tough to determine which is the case -- again, presuming that this is actually an example of imbalance.

[cforce]

The distinguishing element in these cases is that the developers go "Oops!" when it is pointed out. In the stacking bonuses situation we know that things are working as they are meant to work (again, because the blurbs tell us that this is so).


I'm starting to notice a common thread, here. It seems in all these cases, the distinguishing factor is: the development team has explicitly or implicity acknowledged that there is some sort of imbalance now, and they are planning to rectify the situation in the future. The causes may be varied:

1. Rollout roadmaps over several modules (for example, PrEs)
2. "Oops, we didn't forsee that those things would work together that way!" (Your gianthold example.)
3. "Oops, there's a bug in the way we implemented that! We're going to fix it."

...but in each case, there's an indication that efforts are underway to rectify the situation.

Is this a fair observation?

[Leyoni]

I'm starting to notice a common thread, here. It seems in all these cases, the distinguishing factor is: the development team has explicitly or implicity acknowledged that there is some sort of imbalance now, and they are planning to rectify the situation in the future. The causes may be varied:

1. Rollout roadmaps over several modules (for example, PrEs)
2. "Oops, we didn't forsee that those things would work together that way!" (Your gianthold example.)
3. "Oops, there's a bug in the way we implemented that! We're going to fix it."

...but in each case, there's an indication that efforts are underway to rectify the situation.

Is this a fair observation?

Yes. If there is no acknowledgement then how can we say that the problem is a temporary one for which a rebalance is in the plans or an accidental one that they created by something recently added to the game?

But, more than that as well.

Balance issues like the stacking bonuses (if these are in fact a balance issue -- something we have yet to determine) have a different characteristic. They are long-present elements of the game for which an "Oops, we didn't forsee" statement really doesn't explain things.

The difference is the speed at which the developers respond with their "Oops" statement. Samadhi's gianthold example received an almost immedate "Oops". The stacking bonuses may generate an "Oops" at some point but have been part of the game since inception.

It isn't necessary for a real balance issue to have been part of the game from the start. It is necessary that it have been part of the game for a long time and its impact not observed by players or developers until much later.

This is why I think the stacking bonuses and the lack of routine, dependable, periodic release of new material (remember when it was monthly?) might represent balance issues that are worth discussing -- whereas those meeting the 3 criteria you mention above are legitimately answered with "just don't use it" in many instances.

[cforce]

So, looking forward into the future a bit: let's say the development team issues a belated "Oops, these stacking dodge bonuses are really creating a problem -- we're working on addressing that." At that point, would you consider it deserving of the same treatment (going forward, of course) as the other examples? In other words: devs have acknowledged it and said they're working on it, so we should move from raising awareness of the problem to waiting for the fix?

[Leyoni]

So, looking forward into the future a bit: let's say the development team issues a belated "Oops, these stacking dodge bonuses are really creating a problem -- we're working on addressing that." At that point, would you consider it deserving of the same treatment (going forward, of course) as the other examples? In other words: devs have acknowledged it and said they're working on it, so we should move from raising awareness of the problem to waiting for the fix?

Yes. But, remember that I advocate pointing out the problem and then allowing the developers to determine the solution. I don't think player supplied solutions benefit the game because they become popularity driven rather than merit driven.

Again, the example of Tempest AC. Popular solution is to make it a shield bonus (in fact, revealed that it will be a shield bonus in the next mod). Current solution and, IMO the correct one, is to make it a feat bonus. I could go into detail on why the shield bonus is not correct from a player standpoint. However, I can understand the shield bonus solution from a game balance standpoint -- particularly if the other PREs and new equipment doesn't bring armored melee AC into the same range as unarmored Tempest builds.

So, my POV is that we identify what we believe to be a legitimate balance issue. We raise it to the developers. We get a response. Then we allow them to do their jobs.

In the meantime, we either accept the imbalance as part of the game and develop characters that rely on that OR we choose not to. Choosing not to can be summed up as "just don't use it".

:)

[cforce]

It isn't necessary for a real balance issue to have been part of the game from the start. It is necessary that it have been part of the game for a long time...

OK. The part that I'm still having some trouble with is the time-sensitivity. Let's say something launches today that seems unbalancing. How long does it need to stay that way before it becomes 'fair game'? What has changed at the point which it transitions from "too new to be a 'real' balance problem" to "old enough to be a real balance problem"?

[Leyoni]

OK. The part that I'm still having some trouble with is the time-sensitivity. Let's say something launches today that seems unbalancing. How long does it need to stay that way before it becomes 'fair game'? What has changed at the point which it transitions from "too new to be a 'real' balance problem" to "old enough to be a real balance problem"?

IMO the important thing is that it will not be immediately obvious or even suspect. To the contrary, initially it all looks and feels just fine.

This is a characteristic of the stacking bonuses example. Not that we have established that it is actually an imbalance, just that now as we look back it might be one.

However, up until this point most people have not considered the stacking bonuses to be a problem. To the contrary, they have accepted them and built characters using them. And, where there have been problems (such as with monk splashed tempest rangers) the stacking bonuses have not been identified as the problem.

So, we can say with respect to stacking bonuses that this is an accepted part of the game that is working as it is intended to work. It is only recently that this has been raised as having a negative consequence on the game and being the real root of the AC imbalance (which has created a game imbalance among melee types).

If you're looking for a hard-and-fast rule -- 6 days, 6 weeks, 6 months, etc. -- then I don't think one can be formulated. IMO it is long enough for X, whatever X is, to have been completely accepted as part of the game without having generated objections and for subsequent consequences to remain unknown.

In the case of stacking bonuses the consequences probably would have remained unknown were it not for the monk class having been introduced.

[cforce]

IMO it is long enough for X, whatever X is, to have been completely accepted as part of the game without having generated objections and for subsequent consequences to remain unknown.

In the case of stacking bonuses the consequences probably would have remained unknown were it not for the monk class having been introduced.

Hm: under these restrictions, then, I'd say Dodge/stacking isn't a "real" example. There definitely were people throwing up warnings right away -- when it became apparent that the Chaosguardes and the Dodge feat stacked, again with the introduction of the Chattering Ring, and again with IR. Of course, there wasn't consensus -- there never is! But, there were definitely people objecting right away, and describing exactly the consequences we're seeing.

[Leyoni]

Hm: under these restrictions, then, I'd say Dodge/stacking isn't a "real" example. There definitely were people throwing up warnings right away -- when it became apparent that the Chaosguardes and the Dodge feat stacked, again with the introduction of the Chattering Ring, and again with IR. Of course, there wasn't consensus -- there never is! But, there were definitely people objecting right away, and describing exactly the consequences we're seeing.

Was there a groundswell? Was there anything from Turbine of the "Oops" nature?

Turbine's position on this seems clear -- there is no problem and they have created even more cases of stacking bonuses.

I'm not meaning to restrict things so completely as you seem to have inferred. I've already said that I don't think there is a way to generate a rule for this one.

I had a boss who described the work we were doing as "arcience" -- part art and part science. Or, as people used to tell me about retirement -- you'll know when its time to retire when you know it. :)

In this case I think that stacking bonuses were not well recognized as being even potentially problematic and they certainly are not seen by Turbine in that way. Forum traffic indicates that this is a rather recent discovery on the part of the general game population.

To me it isn't an example that fits in any of the other categories. And, maybe, that is the best way to classify it -- by ruling out all other possibilities.

But, if you want to rule it out go ahead. You were, after all, going to provide examples of your own concerning real imbalances. ;)

[cforce]

I'm not meaning to restrict things so completely as you seem to have inferred. I've already said that I don't think there is a way to generate a rule for this one.

I had a boss who described the work we were doing as "arcience" -- part art and part science. Or, as people used to tell me about retirement -- you'll know when its time to retire when you know it. :)

If you're going to demand examples, you're going to have to strictly define what you're looking for -- "I know it when I see it" is something I'd expect in Congress, but it's not going to fly here! The situation right now is:

YOU: "There haven't been any 'real' imbalances in the past. Prove me wrong, and give me an example!"
ME: "OK. Can you tell me what, in your opinion, would constitute a 'real' imabalance?"
YOU: "I'll know it when I see it."
ME: "Hey, I'm not *that* big of a sucker."

While you've put *some* definition in place, you've left yourself an 'I know it when I see it' loophole. This will have to be closed in order for me to actually understand your position and what you're looking for! Otherwise, I'm simply walking into a big trap (intentional or not) where you can declare any example invalid using the 'I know it when I see it' criteria. Again -- works in Congress, but doesn't work in any real academic discussion!

So, let me see if I can help figure out exactly what it is that makes this one 'real' for you.



Turbine's position on this seems clear -- there is no problem and they have created even more cases of stacking bonuses.

Hm -- let me suggest a definition, then. Perhaps the line you're drawing has nothing to do with time, per se, but whether or not there's a tacit acknowledgement from Turbine (either explicit in a dev comment, or inferred through new content which exacerbates the problem) that they are happy with the current implementation? And it just so happens that these implicit acknowledgements usually take some amount of time to come out?



Forum traffic indicates that this is a rather recent discovery on the part of the general game population.

The other possible definition seems to sit in this space, but I can't figure out how it would make sense. A few folks recognized the problem right away; more folks noticed it as more items were introduced. If there's a real problem, is it "not real" when the smartest, most observant forum posters realize it, and only "becomes real" when slower-to-catch-on posters 'catch up' months or years later?

I'm trying to pick a couple of things you've said and tease out the underlying criteria that you're using to help move things along.

(As an aside, I'm assuming you didn't intentionally set this up as a 'trap'. Nevertheless, it's there, so we have to disarm it (together) before I can start discussing other examples.)

[Leyoni]

(As an aside, I'm assuming you didn't intentionally set this up as a 'trap'. Nevertheless, it's there, so we have to disarm it (together) before I can start discussing other examples.)

I'm too tired to work that hard and I don't think there really is a trap.

We've outlined three or four things that are not a "real" problem. If the problem does not fit into one of those categories then it has to fit into the only place that is left. You cleverly tried to suggest that whenever a problem gets fixed it automatically becomes only a temporary one and thus not real. It was disingeneous.

We have these categories of imbalance:

1. Exploits*. Really exist, really cause imbalance, really are forbidden.

2. Temporary. Known imbalance caused by game design that is acknowledged and for which plans already exist (whether explicitly outlined to players or only generally acknowledged) that will redress the balance.

3. Accidental. An imbalance caused by a change in game mechanics that has an unforeseen impact. When pointed out to Turbine the response is to agree that the effect was unintended.

4. Broken code. This falls outside the parameters of balance but we continue to include it because its effect is to alter balance.

5. All other forms of imbalance.

Now, do your examples fit into one of the first four categories? If so then don't waste our time.

Does stacking bonuses fit into one of the first four categories? If so then great. It doesn't bother me since I'm not the one trying to prove that "just don't use it" is a bad response to balance issues. IE, I don't have to provide an example of imbalance where "just don't use it" fails as a response.

If none of the first four categories apply then the balance question must fit into the final category.

Remove what it cannot be and whatever is left is what it must be. :)

*You indicated you would not count this as a balance problem.

[cforce]

You may have subtly removed the piece I found objectionable, rendering the 'I know it when I see it' discussion moot. But let me highlight what it seems like you removed, and make sure you agree it's OK to disregard it. Your most recent definition:



1. Exploits*. Really exist, really cause imbalance, really are forbidden.
2. Temporary. Known imbalance caused by game design that is acknowledged and for which plans already exist (whether explicitly outlined to players or only generally acknowledged) that will redress the balance.
3. Accidental. An imbalance caused by a change in game mechanics that has an unforeseen impact. When pointed out to Turbine the response is to agree that the effect was unintended.
4. Broken code. This falls outside the parameters of balance but we continue to include it because its effect is to alter balance.
5. All other forms of imbalance.


This is a change from what you were saying a few posts ago, where you implied #5 was more like:

5. Real: All other forms of imbalance which have been around for a long time and are accepted by players and developers.

I'm hoping you've dropped that restriction, which is the "trap", and are saying that an imbalance that doesn't fit #1 through #4 is 'real', even if it's only been around for a short time.

[Leyoni]

You may have subtly removed the piece I found objectionable, rendering the 'I know it when I see it' discussion moot. But let me highlight what it seems like you removed, and make sure you agree it's OK to disregard it. Your most recent definition:



This is a change from what you were saying a few posts ago, where you implied #5 was more like:

5. Real: All other forms of imbalance which have been around for a long time and are accepted by players and developers.

I'm hoping you've dropped that restriction, which is the "trap", and are saying that an imbalance that doesn't fit #1 through #4 is 'real', even if it's only been around for a short time.

To my way of thinking most instances of #5 will in fact fit the "around for a long time" description. That is not, however, part of the criteria. I apologize if it seemed to have been a necessary condition. IMO it will in fact fit most cases. But its absence does not serve as an automatic disqualifier.

[cforce]

Ah, great! So, to harken back to one of your points waaaay back, there are two fundamentally different questions people are debating: #1: "Is this a balance problem?" and #2: "How should this problem be solved?"

Of course, when there is indication from the development team that *they* are working on rectifying a situation, question #1 is answered -- or, at the very least, becomes moot. The only thing open for discussion at that point is #2.

I believe what you're getting at, more generally, is that in these cases where #1 has already been settled, and #2 is the only open question, it is not a 'real problem'. All of your cases are cases where the development team has implicitly or explicitly answered question #1 in the affirmative.

The "real" cases, on the other hand, are the cases where there is a question as to whether or not there *is* a problem -- where the development team has not (yet) said, "yep, this is a problem, and we're working on fixing it."

Is this a fair interpretation?

[Leyoni]

Ah, great! So, to harken back to one of your points waaaay back, there are two fundamentally different questions people are debating: #1: "Is this a balance problem?" and #2: "How should this problem be solved?"

Of course, when there is indication from the development team that *they* are working on rectifying a situation, question #1 is answered -- or, at the very least, becomes moot. The only thing open for discussion at that point is #2.

I believe what you're getting at, more generally, is that in these cases where #1 has already been settled, and #2 is the only open question, it is not a 'real problem'. All of your cases are cases where the development team has implicitly or explicitly answered question #1 in the affirmative.

The "real" cases, on the other hand, are the cases where there is a question as to whether or not there *is* a problem -- where the development team has not (yet) said, "yep, this is a problem, and we're working on fixing it."

Is this a fair interpretation?

Well, I would not bother with #2 since IMO that is the developer's job.

However, when #1 is recognized then IMO it is pointless to discuss "balance".

If #1 is not recognized (by Turbine) then posts by players on what they think is a balance issue and why are worthwhile. They continue to be worthwhile until Turbine either says, "No, this is what we mean for the game" or they say, "Yes, this is a problem that we should fix."

If "No" is the answer then the posts regarding "balance" need to go away -- at least on that point and for some period of time (until next module perhaps) so that everyone has a time to reassess.

If "Yes" is the answer then it is up to the development team to come up with solutions. If they choose to ask then we can provide suggestions. But unsolicited suggestions only serve to fuel pointless debates among people with different opinions.

[cforce]

If #1 is not recognized (by Turbine) then posts by players on what they think is a balance issue and why are worthwhile. They continue to be worthwhile until Turbine either says, "No, this is what we mean for the game" or they say, "Yes, this is a problem that we should fix."

I think we're on solid ground for a shared agreement, then. Primarily where I've seen "just don't use it" used improperly is when the discussion is in this state: there is debate about *whether it is a problem*. Specifically, in the context of someone trying to make an argument about #1: "There isn't a balance problem, because I like the gameplay with this thing, and you [the objector] can just not use it if it's making the game less fun for you." This is the usage I've seen in the past, and the fallacy I am decrying in the OP.


If "Yes" is the answer then it is up to the development team to come up with solutions. If they choose to ask then we can provide suggestions. But unsolicited suggestions only serve to fuel pointless debates among people with different opinions.

In this context, I understand your usage to be, in a discussion of #2, basically: "Look, the devs already know that there's a balance problem, and they're working on correcting it. Discussing it further serves no purpose -- if it continues to bother you, just don't use it until they fix it."

And while I *disagree* with you on whether discussing it further is useful, your position is understandable. In this context, there is no fallacy; only disagreement about whether the *forum discussion* is useful.

I think we still need to discuss the "Devs said No" case a bit more, but I want to see if we have agreement on this point first. (I can also go back and clarify usage in the OP to avoid confusing the contexts.)

[Leyoni]

I think we're on solid ground for a shared agreement, then. Primarily where I've seen "just don't use it" used improperly is when the discussion is in this state: there is debate about *whether it is a problem*. Specifically, in the context of someone trying to make an argument about #1: "There isn't a balance problem, because I like the gameplay with this thing, and you [the objector] can just not use it if it's making the game less fun for you." This is the usage I've seen in the past, and the fallacy I am decrying in the OP.


Alright. In this case "just don't use it" may or may not be a legitimate response depending on whether the "imbalance" really is imbalancing (that is, causing the game to shift too far outside the "maximum fun zone"). I think that the onus of proof is on those claiming that X is imbalancing and that until this is established "just don't use it" remains a legitimate response.

Once X is generally recognized as imbalancing the shift needs to be made away from "just don't use it". It would appear to me that if posters did a better job of proving that X is imbalancing then the "just don't use it" response would not come up.


In this context, I understand your usage to be, in a discussion of #2, basically: "Look, the devs already know that there's a balance problem, and they're working on correcting it. Discussing it further serves no purpose -- if it continues to bother you, just don't use it until they fix it."

And while I *disagree* with you on whether discussing it further is useful, your position is understandable. In this context, there is no fallacy; only disagreement about whether the *forum discussion* is useful.

Correct and in this area we are just going to be in disagreement. Nothing wrong with that.


I think we still need to discuss the "Devs said No" case a bit more, but I want to see if we have agreement on this point first. (I can also go back and clarify usage in the OP to avoid confusing the contexts.)

Well, the dev's said no doesn't automatically rule out X from being imbalancing. But, there is nothing productive to be gained by continuing a discussion in that case. What should be done is to set X aside for a while to give it more time. Maybe the dev's are right, maybe not. This is why I suggest putting these cases aside at least until the next release.

BTW, at this point I feel like I've made all of my points successfully and illustrated why "just don't use it" is in fact a legitimate response to many so-called "balance" posts. Of the many varieties of posts we have narrowed the field where "just don't use it" is generally unacceptable to just one type.

[cforce]

Alright. In this case "just don't use it" may or may not be a legitimate response depending on whether the "imbalance" really is imbalancing (that is, causing the game to shift too far outside the "maximum fun zone"). I think that the onus of proof is on those claiming that X is imbalancing and that until this is established "just don't use it" remains a legitimate response.

Sigh -- just when I though we were close, we're back to nowhere near common understanding. This seems to completely miss the point! Just to be certain, I want to make sure you didn't miss the word "because" in the following statement:


"There isn't a balance problem, because I like the gameplay with this thing, and you [the objector] can just not use it if it's making the game less fun for you."

You seem to be saying, "just don't use it" is a valid counterargument if there *isn't* a balance problem.

The problem, of course, is that applying that to my quote results in this interpretation:

"<<You're wrong>> because <<argument which is valid only if you are wrong>>."

So I have to conclude either (1) you missed the word 'because', or (2) you think circular reasoning is valid. I'm hoping its the first -- we may not have much left to talk about if it's the latter!

[Leyoni]

You seem to be saying, "just don't use it" is a valid counterargument if there *isn't* a balance problem.

Naturally it is a valid response. I've already said that simply telling the poster that they are wrong and that there isn't an imbalance is wasted time. Posters who claim there is an imbalance have already worked themselves into a snit. Reason is ineffective. So a response of "just don't use it" is perfectly valid.

The problem, of course, is that applying that to my quote results in this interpretation:

"<<You're wrong>> because <<argument which is valid only if you are wrong>>."

But, this is perfectly legitimate. You are wrong because you are wrong is as absolutely correct as the equation 10=10. Generally in a discussion people prefer to have it explained to them why they are wrong rather than just have a WRONG! tossed at them. And, in some cases people are really willing to discuss things. However, see above. When people have already convinced themselves that they are right no amount of reasoning will undo that. Thus, "just don't use it" becomes a legitimate response.

Edit: To be more specific, "just don't use it" is a legitimate response when there is no balance problem -- your ""<<You're wrong>> because <<argument which is valid only if you are wrong>>" as applied to "You seem to be saying, "just don't use it" is a valid counterargument if there *isn't* a balance problem." If there is no balance problem then "just don't use it" fits. Substituting into your statement, "<<There is no balance problem>> because <<you just don't need to use it if it bothers you, which is true only if there is no balance problem>>." If we have established already that there IS no balance problem this seeming nonsense actually refines to this, "<<You are wrong>> because <<there is no balance problem. If you are still bothered then just don't use it.>>" And, in this refined state the comment is absolutely legitimate.

So I have to conclude either (1) you missed the word 'because', or (2) you think circular reasoning is valid. I'm hoping its the first -- we may not have much left to talk about if it's the latter!

I think you're trying to skip out on giving examples of imbalance. :)

But, to take from your previous post,


Primarily where I've seen "just don't use it" used improperly is when the discussion is in this state: there is debate about *whether it is a problem*. Specifically, in the context of someone trying to make an argument about #1: "There isn't a balance problem, because I like the gameplay with this thing, and you [the objector] can just not use it if it's making the game less fun for you." This is the usage I've seen in the past, and the fallacy I am decrying in the OP.

<snip>

(I can also go back and clarify usage in the OP to avoid confusing the contexts.)

IMO when discussing whether there IS or IS NOT a balance problem it is perfectly fine hold the opinion that "There isn't a balance problem because I like the gameplay with this thing." And, it logically follows that if you object "you can just not use it if it's making the game less fun for you."

This only fails if we demonstrate that X actually moves players past the maximum fun zone. If it shifts them to the extreme end of the zone without pushing them out it is not a balance issue by definition. By definition -- your definition based on the illustrations of your original post -- as long as the gameplay remains inside the maximum fun zone the game is not imbalanced. This is why the onus for proving imbalance lies with the person claiming that it exists.

Thus far we have established criteria for identifying what constitutes a potential imbalance. We have defined what imbalance is. I have provided examples of what MIGHT be imbalances.

And you still want to debate around the edges.

I'm beginning to suspect that you really don't have any examples of imbalances at all and are simply avoiding that admission. You can't even take the examples I provided and apply the definition and criteria in an effort to determine whether they are legitimate or not.

My conclusion then is that your thesis has failed entirely and that you really do not want to continue the discussion because continuing only further demonstrates the failure.

However, if you would like to analyze specific examples that meet the criteria and definition that we have established then by all means let's get down to the details and quit this dance around the edges.

[cforce]

"<<You're wrong>> because <<argument which is valid only if you are wrong>>."

But, this is perfectly legitimate.

<facepalm>

Well, as promised in the last post, there's not much more we can say. If you really think this is true, there's no point in us carrying this discussion any further. At this point, we might as well just try and maximize the comedic value of the thread for the benefit of people still reading, and start making our arguments with clever memes. Hm. In fact...

http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/picard-facepalm.jpg

There!

/comedic meme argument on


I'm beginning to suspect that you really don't have any examples of imbalances at all and are simply avoiding that admission. You can't even take the examples I provided and apply the definition and criteria in an effort to determine whether they are legitimate or not.

Oy, Leyoni. YOUR OWN example didn't fit well with YOUR OWN criteria. I was trying to point this out the nice way. The reason I haven't provided examples of your "real" balance problems:

http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/pancake_bunny.jpg

I still don't know what your definition is! It's clear you think you've defined it -- from where I sit, the definitions are pretty vague and circular. So, I give up trying to figure out what you think 'balance problems' are. Statements like this:


It is perfectly fine hold the opinion that "There isn't a balance problem because I like the gameplay with this thing."

...this:


As the game now stands players can choose to do all of the things that have been suggested as imbalancing: solo Reaver with a caster, build monk splashes, use WoP or vorpals. If they feel that creates an imbalance then they are free to not do those things.

...and, my favorite, this:


Lack of continued development and routine release of new material might also be a legitimate balance problem.

http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/o_rly.jpg

...tell me whatever you're defining as 'gameplay balance' is so far away from what I'm talking about that its not even in the same state! Here's what I'm talking about. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance)

I don't want to reneg on my promise, though, so I'll do the best as I can, by giving a quick list of what *I'd* consider real balance problems that have made an appearance on the boards in the past, both over- and under-powered.

"Minimally Useful AC" vs. "Peak AC" gap
DPS/Defense Balance of TWF vs. THF vs. S&B
Bow Speed vs. Melee Speed as BAB increased
Purchasable Wall of Fire scrolls, Cloudkill scrolls, etc.
Auto-crits/Sneak attack under weapon-based Paralyzation
Warforged Immunity Cost
WoP + Barb Crit Rage II
AoE spells + Metamagic change
Intimidate Cooldown
Web
Underpowered Hamstring, Slicing Blow, and Sap
Trap DC scaling

I've got no doubt you'll debate that some of these aren't 'real' balance problems, but like I said, I've given up trying to figure out what you think 'balance problems' actually are, or what, exactly, the point is that you're trying to make.


And you still want to debate around the edges.

You think those were the edges of the discussion? I fear you're still missing the point, as I've felt you have been all along!



At present time, except in cases where some item has been removed from the game, there is nothing that any "Have" has that a "Have Not" cannot get.

...the majority of players actually are "just not using" because the majority just don't have!

http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/missingthepoint.png



3. That game designs that fail to accommodate all of these must adapt or fail.

IMO there is nothing in your post that indicates DDO meets the third criteria.

The reason that there is nothing in my post to indicate that DDO meets the third criteria is: I'm not trying to claim that!

http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/missingthepoint.png




Whether all Romans are liars or not, this fails because you need to state that all men are Romans for the logic to be valid.

<Buries head in hand>. The fact that the statements in quotes are incorrect logic was directly stated by cforce and was his entire point.

http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/missingthepoint.png



If you can find an example of core-level design error that dooms the game to failure then I'll agree that "just don't use it" does not apply. However, no issue ever raised here in the forums fits that category.

That is classically fallacious reasoning. It is the Nirvana fallacy, inverted.

Simply because a particular problem won't lead to total and complete destruction doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about. Alternatively, just because things could be worse doesn't mean they're already perfect.

http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/missingthepoint.png

Ok, I don't mean to marginalize legitimate concerns. OTOH, I don't think most of the concerns are legitimate.
http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/missingthepoint.png



"If the developers introduced a *legitimate* balance problem like the 'Raid Boss Vorpal', and someone said, "this is unbalanced", would you still think "just don't use it" would be a good suggestion as a solution?"

It depends...

http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/missingthepoint.png

Other posts diverge into "Really? You really think that?" territory...


Public discussion is not valuable.




* You think taxes should be higher? Mail cash to the government!
* You think drugs (or guns) are destructive? Don't buy them!

...Some changes just don't work unless they're universally applied.

True if you are a socialist or a fascist.





"If the developers introduced a *legitimate* balance problem like the 'Raid Boss Vorpal', and someone said, "this is unbalanced", would you still think "just don't use it" would be a good suggestion as a solution?"

It depends...



[Abbot] is working as designed.

http://www.plus7systems.com/tangents/picard-facepalm.jpg

I think that we'll just have to agree:


When people have already convinced themselves that they are right no amount of reasoning will undo that.

/comedic meme argument off

OK, in all seriousness, we both think we've made our point, and the other person has failed! Neither one of us is going to convince the other. I'm confident enough that I've made my argument well, and I can let thread readers come to their own conclusion -- I'm guessing you have that same confidence. I don't see much point in continuing the dialogue further.

Oh, and in conclusion -- do you know who else said "just don't use it?" The Nazis. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g)

[Leyoni]

YOUR OWN example didn't fit well with YOUR OWN criteria. I was trying to point this out the nice way. The reason I haven't provided examples of your "real" balance problems: I still don't know what your definition is! It's clear you think you've defined it -- from where I sit, the definitions are pretty vague and circular.

And here we finally come to why posting on forums is pointless. I state things very clearly and you turn them into childish attempts at humor while completely obscuring reality.

Not even a child can misread this yet somehow you have succeeded.


We have these categories of imbalance:

1. Exploits*. Really exist, really cause imbalance, really are forbidden.

2. Temporary. Known imbalance caused by game design that is acknowledged and for which plans already exist (whether explicitly outlined to players or only generally acknowledged) that will redress the balance.

3. Accidental. An imbalance caused by a change in game mechanics that has an unforeseen impact. When pointed out to Turbine the response is to agree that the effect was unintended.

4. Broken code. This falls outside the parameters of balance but we continue to include it because its effect is to alter balance.

5. All other forms of imbalance.

My examples:


There are two items that I think might fit this scenario right now. One is dodge bonus (or broader, stacking bonuses of the same type but different + values) and the other is lack of continued development and routine release of new material.

Your examples:


"Minimally Useful AC" vs. "Peak AC" gap
DPS/Defense Balance of TWF vs. THF vs. S&B
Bow Speed vs. Melee Speed as BAB increased
Purchasable Wall of Fire scrolls, Cloudkill scrolls, etc.
Auto-crits/Sneak attack under weapon-based Paralyzation
Warforged Immunity Cost
WoP + Barb Crit Rage II
AoE spells + Metamagic change
Intimidate Cooldown
Web
Underpowered Hamstring, Slicing Blow, and Sap
Trap DC scaling


Lastly, the definition of what imbalance actually is:


At the core of understanding why games need to be balanced is understanding the fun that comes out of challenge. If you imagine a spectrum of difficulty from "press this button, and you win" to "will never be possible for anyone, ever", you can map out a 'fun response' alongside it, like this:


Win Button------Mildly Challenging--------Extremely Challenging-------Impossible
Boring-------<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<MAXIMUM FUN ZONE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------Frustrating

The games that keep people playing the longest are the ones that oscillate back and forth in that Maximum Fun Zone: you need to have some periods of only Mild Challenge, with ramp-ups to extreme challenge, and so forth. Spending too much time in "Boring" or "Frustrating" leads players to leave the game.

Now, it is NOT too much to ask a person to apply this information to each of the suspected cases of imbalance.

Let's try, can we do that?

My example: Stacking bonuses.

Looking at criteria do items 1-4 apply? No. Thus, by definition 5 applies.

Looking at definition does it cause the game to go to the "Boring" or "Frustrating" levels? Provisional yes. Reasoning, highest level content may be more than Extremely Challenging without them.

Is it an imbalance? Now it gets hard. Without the stacking bonuses highest level content approaches Frustrating. Yet with them highest level content is not Boring.

Conclusion: ??? Go ahead cforce, what do YOU think the conclusion is?

Your example: "Minimally Useful AC" vs. "Peak AC" gap.

Looking at criteria do items 1-4 apply? Yes. Item 2 applies.

Conclusion: ??? I'd let you do this one for yourself but somehow I know you'll get it wrong. The conclusion is that this is not an imbalance. Yes, it is frustrating and currently imbalancing but it will be addressed with new content so it doesn't fit our criteria for discussion.

Your example: Warforged Immunity Cost

Looking at criteria do items 1-4 apply? No. Thus, by definition 5 applies.

Looking at definition does it cause the game to go to the "Boring" or "Frustrating" levels? No. It does not.

Conclusion: You know the conclusion, it is not imbalancing.

This is really very simple to do. What I have shown is that the standards you set by your definition of imbalance do not preclude "just don't use it." What I have also proven is that when applied the standards of criteria and definition allow us to evaluate "balance" problems and reach conclusions about them.

What you have shown is that emotional reaction on a child level blinds you to reason. I know you think Warforged immunity cost is imbalancing because you listed it. But it isn't. It is just your personal take that the cost is wrong. It doesn't shift the game to Boring or Frustrating. It has no effect on that whatsoever.

The collective evidence is that you are wrong. I don't need to go thru each example, mine or yours, to prove this. You (and any other reader) can do this without my help.

Finally, disproving my examples means nothing because (as I've stated repeatedly) I'm not the one trying to prove that imbalance exists. The proof of imbalance lies with you.

You have given an example of imbalance with the AC example. But, it does not fit the criteria for "just don't use it" because it is a temporary imbalance that the developers know about. To cite another of your examples that fits into this category, you list "DPS/Defense Balance of TWF vs. THF vs. S&B." Once again it is imbalancing, but it also is a temporary imbalance that the developers know about.

The rest of your "imbalance" examples are primarily differences of opinion on how mechanisms should work. There is nothing innately wrong with having a difference of opinion. But that does not qualify the examples as balance problems because they fail immediately when the definition of balance -- the definition YOU provided -- is applied.

So, the dance is indeed over. Your position has been shown to be completely invalid and, thanks to your last posting, entirely childish.

As I said, this is why such forum discussions are pointless -- in spite of the clear evidence accumulated thru multiple postings, you continue to cling to the belief that somehow you are correct.

You are not.

[cforce]

So, the dance is indeed over. ...and, thanks to your last posting, entirely childish.


Heh, yep. That was pretty much the point, Leyoni. I stopped being able to take you seriously here:



"<<You're wrong>> because <<argument which is valid only if you are wrong>>."

But, this is perfectly legitimate.

...so I don't see any point in trying to continue serious discussion. You keep saying you've shown my position to be invalid, and I don't see it. I'm comfortable letting the thread stand as-is and letting the readers decide who's right. Further debate seems pretty pointless.

[Letrii]

But this whole system hinges on people having the same values as you. Some may like the easy button and be fun for them and some may like the difficulty so hard others would be pulling their hair out.

[Hafeal]

But this whole system hinges on people having the same values as you. Some may like the easy button and be fun for them and some may like the difficulty so hard others would be pulling their hair out.

The temptation was too much to just let this poor thread rest in peace, eh? ;)

[Dretharis]

The temptation was too much to just let this poor thread rest in peace, eh? ;)

I only wish I had come across it sooner, so I could've started giving cforce rep months ago. He must have a patience +20 hat or something.

[eowilson]

Good post, and I think it is especially relevant after mod 9.

[Borror0]

But this whole system hinges on people having the same values as you.
cforce's argument is: it is not because I decide not to use something that its existence has no effect on me.

Therefore, whether something haves "the same values"' as him is completely irrelevant.

[DoctorBadWolf]

Alright, let me put it in perspective.

If you had to make this choice, what would you pick:

Go free to play/create the store/DDO:EU initiative or close DDO because it doesn't make enough money

What is your choice there?

You may say that this wasn't the choice they had to make but...games are produced to make money, for no other rreason. They are to generate revenue. If the revenue being produced doesn't meet expectations then why would investments continue to be made in the product?

I have real life experience with this.

I worked in a comic book store when I was a kid. The comic book store was great and in a great location. It didn't make a lot of money but it was fun. Rent was expensive.

The store moved to a more out of the way location where the rent was much cheaper but obviously wasn't nearly as prominent.

The store closed about 6 months later.

I once asked the owner why he'd moved from that great location because surely the other was better for business. He said if they didn't move, the store would have just closed instead.

Turbine is piloting this F2P model so they are going to give it a genuine test to see how the model can be applied to future games. So they're going to give it at least a year.

If the EU initiative gives me even 1 more month with my friends in this game, I'll take it.

I'll take the store, and the influx of F2P players, and everything that comes with it because the only thing you never get back is time. So I am cheering th success of EU and all that comes with it.

Because those last 6 months at that comic store were some of my best memories from my youth. And if EU gives me that extra time in DDO I wouldn't have gotten otherwise...I'll take it.

Nice post.

Also, isn't it nice that the influx of players and the store are good things, and thus don't really need to be "put up with"? :P I mean, you win on every side. You get more months of gaming here, and a better game with more players while you're at it.
This is the best era in the history of the game. :D

[DoctorBadWolf]

Very nice presentation but you fail to address the argument -- If X is unbalancing just do not use it.

What you are discussing is a corporate level decision making model that applies to Turbine and its developers. As players we are completely limited by the product. We can be "Haves" and make every quest trivial. We can be "Have Nots" and make every quest extremely difficult or even impossible.

Or, we can choose to be something in between.

The onus for game design and balance lies on Turbine and its developers. The decisions on individual use of every optimal item and build rest on us as individuals.

Therefore, the argument that "if X is unbalancing just do not use it" remains completely valid. Moreso given your excellent explanation. If you, individually, desire to keep in the "maximum fun zone" then keep your characters balanced between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". I'd call those the "Have Somes" -- the characters that have some of the things that make them above the "Have Nots" but below the "Haves".

In any iteration of your model the "Have Somes" will remain in the "maximum fun zone".

That's great, for an individual. Not for the game. The problem isn't fixed, just worked around by some people. The balance still needs to be restored for the sake of the game as a whole, the community as a whole.

[DoctorBadWolf]

No, his post doesn't depend on alleging an existing imbalance in DDO. In fact, the topic doesn't necessarily even have to be about DDO at all. It could be about WOW, or TF2, or baseball, or even federal banking regulations.

The point is that if someone complains that a certain rule will have indirect negative effects on him, exhorting him to personally restrain from using it does not address his perceived problem.

Here's an example from the USA at the beginning of this year: junk mortgages. Personally restraining yourself from applying for a mortgage you can't afford will keep you out of bankruptcy, but it won't stop you from losing income due to an economic slowdown triggered by millions of people who did go bankrupt.

Beautiful comparison. +1 rep

[Borror0]

Doctor, use multiquote if you're going to reply to several posts in a row.

[DoctorBadWolf]

Doctor, use multiquote if you're going to reply to several posts in a row.

Right, sorry.

[TheDjinnFor]

So, the dance is indeed over. Your position has been shown to be completely invalid and, thanks to your last posting, entirely childish.

As I said, this is why such forum discussions are pointless -- in spite of the clear evidence accumulated thru multiple postings, you continue to cling to the belief that somehow you are correct.

You are not.

XD

This requires a good necro.