Let's Party Like It's 2015: Josh Sawyer Balance Discussion

[Chris Avelltwo]

His games are always somewhat dull to play.. it's like he was born to do advanced Excel work but instead ended up doing something completely opposite in his life.

Either that or he has a really weird sense of fun.. like 2 variables being close in their values, eg. balanced.

What you're saying is funny, because that's EXACTLY what the "mainstream" thinks of CRPGs, and everything associated with them - including this very site, and everyone on it. So the words you are using to insult him should really be considered a compliment, because he's just like everyone else here - just to a greater extreme than most. What he does may be "boring", but it is necessary, so that his game doesn't end up with pointless junk mechanics. You can tell he really cares about the quality of his work, because he goes out of his way and does things like his FNV mod without even being paid to do it. How many other developers can you think of that would do something like that? It obviously isn't just about the money to him, and I don't think he gets paid a lot anyway, tbh.

 

[hexer]

His games are always somewhat dull to play.. it's like he was born to do advanced Excel work but instead ended up doing something completely opposite in his life.

Either that or he has a really weird sense of fun.. like 2 variables being close in their values, eg. balanced.

What you're saying is funny, because that's EXACTLY what the "mainstream" thinks of CRPGs, and everything associated with them - including this very site, and everyone on it. So the words you are using to insult him should really be considered a compliment, because he's just like everyone else here - just to a greater extreme than most. What he does may be "boring", but it is necessary, so that his game doesn't end up with pointless junk mechanics. You can tell he really cares about the quality of his work, because he goes out of his way and does things like his FNV mod without even being paid to do it. How many other developers can you think of that would do something like that? It obviously isn't just about the money to him, and I don't think he gets paid a lot anyway, tbh.

I have to disagree.. here's what I think about Sawyer's approach as an indie game developer and psychology / sociology aficionado.

1) If he's like everyone else then that means he's to scared to be a trendsetter and is just a follower.
He's not fit to lead anything, especially the development of a creative & entertaining product such as a video game.

2) Genuinely creative people are trendsetters.
They make their own rules, experiment and push the boundaries of what is humanly possible.
Creativity means something new, something new means new information, and this ultimately means "adult neurogenesis" which has incredible benefits (health, longevity, happiness, etc) for you, the player.
They should be complimented - not anyone stuck in the comfort zone of mediocrity and boredom.

3) Another Sawyer's big problem is that he constantly tries to balance Singleplayer games.
They don't have to be balanced at all. Players should have fun in them above all else.
So what if they are uber godlings at the end of the game! They deserved it, it feels great and rewarding!
Multiplayer games, on the other hand, HAVE to be balanced.

4) Without criticism there is no progress. I criticize even myself and that's exactly why I'm trying to build more skills every day.
We're not just venting here regarding TTON, but are in some way trying to get InXile's attention and make them realize they can do better.
A lot better! I think with their recent announcements, we're seeing the magic finally unfolding.

 

[Terpsichore]

There's nothing wrong with balance as long as it achieves its main purpose: enabling playstyle diversity and cutting blatant cheese. What Sawyer does is creating ungodly boredom where nothing is even remotely unique or interesting, just tedious and dull.

 

[Prime Junta]

3) Another Sawyer's big problem is that he constantly tries to balance Singleplayer games.
They don't have to be balanced at all. Players should have fun in them above all else.
So what if they are uber godlings at the end of the game! They deserved it, it feels great and rewarding!
Multiplayer games, on the other hand, HAVE to be balanced.

Not this fucking canard again.

Single-player games do have to be balanced. Why? Because if thye're not, there will be one dominant rote strategy that you'll just mechanically apply to win, which is dull, not fun.

Case in point: Arcanum. Who in their right mind thinks it would not be improved if they did something about Harm spam and the generally wildly OP magick?

 

[Once more unto the Codex]

3) Another Sawyer's big problem is that he constantly tries to balance Singleplayer games.
They don't have to be balanced at all. Players should have fun in them above all else.
So what if they are uber godlings at the end of the game! They deserved it, it feels great and rewarding!
Multiplayer games, on the other hand, HAVE to be balanced.

Not this fucking canard again.

Single-player games do have to be balanced. Why? Because if there's not, there will be one dominant rote strategy that you'll just mechanically apply to win, which is dull, not fun.

Case in point: Arcanum. Who in their right mind thinks it would not be improved if they did something about Harm spam and the generally wildly OP magick?

Also, high-int Nano in TTON.

 

[hexer]

I'm talking about the balance that hurts the game's fun!
Such as enemies being just the right amount of challenge most of the time.

Not the kind of balance that fucks up the balance between various gameplay strategies.

 

[Infinitron]

RPG players who complain about "too much balance" are people who aren't thoughtful enough to verbalize what it is that they really want.

If what you want is basically "rock paper scissors-style abilities that are high risk, high reward", then ask for that. You're not helping designers make better games when you make vague appeals for "imbalance".

 

[hexer]

RPG players who complain about "too much balance" are people who aren't thoughtful enough to verbalize what it is that they really want.

If what you want is basically "rock paper scissors-style attacks that are high risk, high reward", then ask for that. You're not helping designers making better games when you make vague appeals for "imbalance".

Yeah, I should fix their systems for them for FREE.
You can freely criticize my RPG systems once I release my game Fireplace.

 

[Prime Junta]

I'm talking about the balance that hurts the game's fun!
Such as enemies being just the right amount of challenge most of the time.

But that's not the kind of balance JES is talking about. There are legit tough difficulty spikes in Pillars, and Josh did know about them. Starting with those bears in that cave, the little wolfpack on the same map, and the temple of Eothas. He is not of the Bethesda school of level-scaling everything to Oblivion.

Not the kind of balance that fucks up the balance between various gameplay strategies.

Well that's the kind of balance Josh is concerned over.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

3) Another Sawyer's big problem is that he constantly tries to balance Singleplayer games.
They don't have to be balanced at all. Players should have fun in them above all else.
So what if they are uber godlings at the end of the game! They deserved it, it feels great and rewarding!
Multiplayer games, on the other hand, HAVE to be balanced.

Not this fucking canard again.

Single-player games do have to be balanced. Why? Because if there's not, there will be one dominant rote strategy that you'll just mechanically apply to win, which is dull, not fun.

Case in point: Arcanum. Who in their right mind thinks it would not be improved if they did something about Harm spam and the generally wildly OP magick?

You'll still have to explore and expriment with combat systems that are often very complex, and find that dominant strategy by yourself. Lack of balance is only a big problem if you can't help yourself and look up builds and strategies on the net. And I still think it's the minority of players that do that. At least the way I do it, is to do one playthrough completely blind, and if I end up loving the game, I do another that's pure power-gaming bonanza.

The problem with vanilla Pillars wasn't that it was unbalanced, the problem was that dominant build was just too obvious.

I always thought that obsession some people have about having everything min-maxed right away is hurting the genre, because it puts needless pressure on devs to have everything balanced right off the bat. Take Wasteland 2 - i went in blind with probably the most useless party ever (one melee dude, two pistoleros and one sniper) and had a blast, while plenty of people on official forums went with full Assault Rifle party and endlessly bitched that the game is too easy and that containers are random (because they had to save scum containers to even have any ammunition).

It's good to have balance, but it shouldn't be a priority on launch.

 

[Prime Junta]

The problem with vanilla Pillars wasn't that it was unbalanced, the problem was that dominant build was just too obvious.

But that's what "too unbalanced" means for crying out loud!

 

[Chris Avelltwo]

His games are always somewhat dull to play.. it's like he was born to do advanced Excel work but instead ended up doing something completely opposite in his life.

Either that or he has a really weird sense of fun.. like 2 variables being close in their values, eg. balanced.

What you're saying is funny, because that's EXACTLY what the "mainstream" thinks of CRPGs, and everything associated with them - including this very site, and everyone on it. So the words you are using to insult him should really be considered a compliment, because he's just like everyone else here - just to a greater extreme than most. What he does may be "boring", but it is necessary, so that his game doesn't end up with pointless junk mechanics. You can tell he really cares about the quality of his work, because he goes out of his way and does things like his FNV mod without even being paid to do it. How many other developers can you think of that would do something like that? It obviously isn't just about the money to him, and I don't think he gets paid a lot anyway, tbh.

I have to disagree.. here's what I think about Sawyer's approach as an indie game developer and psychology / sociology aficionado.

1) If he's like everyone else then that means he's to scared to be a trendsetter and is just a follower.
He's not fit to lead anything, especially the development of a creative & entertaining product such as a video game.

2) Genuinely creative people are trendsetters.
They make their own rules, experiment and push the boundaries of what is humanly possible.
Creativity means something new, something new means new information, and this ultimately means "adult neurogenesis" which has incredible benefits (health, longevity, happiness, etc) for you, the player.
They should be complimented - not anyone stuck in the comfort zone of mediocrity and boredom.

3) Another Sawyer's big problem is that he constantly tries to balance Singleplayer games.
They don't have to be balanced at all. Players should have fun in them above all else.
So what if they are uber godlings at the end of the game! They deserved it, it feels great and rewarding!
Multiplayer games, on the other hand, HAVE to be balanced.

4) Without criticism there is no progress. I criticize even myself and that's exactly why I'm trying to build more skills every day.
We're not just venting here regarding TTON, but are in some way trying to get InXile's attention and make them realize they can do better.
A lot better! I think with their recent announcements, we're seeing the magic finally unfolding.

I highly recommend giving this video a watch. In it he explains his design philosophy and defends it. You say you are a game developer yourself, so this might be of particular interest/benefit to you as long as you watch this with an open mind.

 

[vivec]

Anyone that says Balance is not a good thing is a moron. However making all choices for character creation/development equally viable is terrible design. D&D suffers from the opposite problem; it makes certain builds too overpowering and as a DM I have to create content that nullifies some of that. But while I would support a Monk optimally built for RP reasons, I *would* let the system punish a monk-bard hybrid.

What balance ought to mean is that the game provides enough *content* for each attribute/skill. if you provide a swim skill then there has to be enough water in the game to actually use the skill.

Another way one can look at balance is to make great power come with great trouble. Powerful magic should require meaningful sacrifice of some resource (turn time, rare ingredient etc).

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

The problem with vanilla Pillars wasn't that it was unbalanced, the problem was that dominant build was just too obvious.

But that's what "too unbalanced" means for crying out loud!

No at all. The game can be completely broken and still be a blast to play, as long as it doesn't hand you the best build on a silver platter before you even clear out the missions in first hub. In Pillars 3.0 there's still plenty of broken builds, but you have to know the game in and out to use them.

 

[mastroego]

RPG players who complain about "too much balance" are people who aren't thoughtful enough to verbalize what it is that they really want.

If what you want is basically "rock paper scissors-style abilities that are high risk, high reward", then ask for that. You're not helping designers making better games when you make vague appeals for "imbalance".

It was debated at lenght during the PoE production/debacle thing.
A lot of people argued very clearly and cleverly their points, brought fitting examples (for instance, the creative and fun itemization of BG2), and all that.
At some point it became clear that's it useless to debate when the other side can only show a completely dead soul (game-wise).

It's just easier to write off PoE, its sequel and any possible siblings.

 

[hexer]

I won't put balance before fun in a video game.
Then I would totally miss the point of what a video game is.

If the quest for ultimate balance creates a dull game experience for the majority of my players, I have a BIG problem.
Sources of dull-inducing balance can be found in either content (bad encounter designs) or RPG mechanics.

Balanced game might look and sound great in theory but the ultimate test is whether the players are having fun or not.
The last Sawyer game I had fun with was IWD 2. That is my experience with his work.

 

[vivec]

I won't put balance before fun in a video game.
Then I would totally miss the point of what a video game is.

If the quest for ultimate balance creates a dull game experience for the majority of my players, I have a BIG problem.
Sources of dull-inducing balance can be found in either content (bad encounter designs) or RPG mechanics.

Balanced game might look and sound great in theory but the ultimate test is whether the players are having fun or not.
The last Sawyer game I had fun with was IWD 2. That is my experience with his work.

A game with great content beats a perfectly balanced game any day. Balancing the game is the *last* concern from the players point of view in a single player game.

 

[Daedalos]

I won't put balance before fun in a video game.
Then I would totally miss the point of what a video game is.

If the quest for ultimate balance creates a dull game experience for the majority of my players, I have a BIG problem.
Sources of dull-inducing balance can be found in either content (bad encounter designs) or RPG mechanics.

Balanced game might look and sound great in theory but the ultimate test is whether the players are having fun or not.
The last Sawyer game I had fun with was IWD 2. That is my experience with his work.

A game with great content beats a perfectly balanced game any day. Balancing the game is the *last* concern from the players point of view in a single player game.

In the end perhaps content is most important, but balance is still quite important in games. It's important, because it ensures the player experiences urgency, difficulty, challenges and makes the player delve deeper into the game itself and its systems, make meaningful choices and so on.

If every task is easy to do and all characters seem equal without having unique pros and cons, you lose all meaningfulness of the task at hand, because the player character loses its own identity essentially (unless of course you play a all powerful god who perfect in every way. but wheres the fun in that?)

It's also the reason why I find characters like Superman and Spiderman and so on incredible boring as opposed to Batman, simply because Batman has a ton more challenges and shit he has to go through to achieve success in the world hes created in, while its far easier for somebody like superman, because hes fucking immortal, superhumanly strong and otherwise have very few weaknesses and excels at pretty much everything. There's got to be a balance of success and hardships in any entertainment product is my theory, because otherwise players will feel cheated and become bored and lose their affinity with the character they are supposed to play.

Life is about choices, you can't ever have everything at once, and because limitation actually enchances the exerience in that weird way.

 

[Chris Avelltwo]

However making all choices for character creation/development equally viable is terrible design.

In Josh's design any build may be viable, but that doesn't mean every build is optimal. The difference between viable and optimal is something he discusses in the video I linked.

 

[an Administrator]

Posting in a Sawyer thread

 

[vivec]

Mengsk
I think your concerns, "urgency, difficulty, challenges and makes the player delve deeper into the game itself and its systems," to me are a part of the content and not balance. But I admit this might be a difference is nomenclature for us.

 

[Luckmann]

3) Another Sawyer's big problem is that he constantly tries to balance Singleplayer games.
They don't have to be balanced at all. Players should have fun in them above all else.
So what if they are uber godlings at the end of the game! They deserved it, it feels great and rewarding!
Multiplayer games, on the other hand, HAVE to be balanced.

Not this fucking canard again.

Single-player games do have to be balanced. Why? Because if thye're not, there will be one dominant rote strategy that you'll just mechanically apply to win, which is dull, not fun.

Case in point: Arcanum. Who in their right mind thinks it would not be improved if they did something about Harm spam and the generally wildly OP magick?

It depends on what you endow "balance" with. Would you say that, for example, Wizardry 8 was balanced? It's patently not, yet the overwhelming number of options and builds by far makes up for it, and most of it is well within what's playable. The key components here are build versatility, varied character options, and an inability to immediately recognize superior options. Balance for the sake of balance has no inherent value. The issue with Arcanum wasn't that it was unbalanced, per see, it was that something like Harm-spam was so obviously superior to similar things that did exactly the same thing - damage, and nothing else.

Balance schmalance, viable options are king.

 

[vivec]

However making all choices for character creation/development equally viable is terrible design.

In Josh's design, any build may be viable, but that doesn't mean every build is optimal. The difference between viable and optimal is something he discusses in the video I linked.

If this is the case, he is right. Unfortunately, it is not the case as far as I can understand from his previous comments about IE games. Also, the experience of POE tells me that it was not a game of this form. In the end, it lacked any credible innovation that made Sawyer look like a great game designer. Please, don't get me wrong. He is a competent designer for sure because his mechanics is playable. But I am not looking for more than that, thank you.

 

[FeelTheRads]

RPG players who complain about "too much balance" are people who aren't thoughtful enough to verbalize what it is that they really want.

If what you want is basically "rock paper scissors-style abilities that are high risk, high reward", then ask for that. You're not helping designers making better games when you make vague appeals for "imbalance".

It was debated at lenght during the PoE production/debacle thing.
A lot of people argued very clearly and cleverly their points, brought fitting examples (for instance, the creative and fun itemization of BG2), and all that.
At some point it became clear that's it useless to debate when the other side can only show a completely dead soul (game-wise).

It's just easier to write off PoE, its sequel and any possible siblings.

Don't bother explaining this to no-fun Sawyer fanbots like Infinitron.
No matter what you tell him he'll find some way to turn it around like the above "oh you just want RPS lolol" or simply say that you just don't like post-apocalyptic landscapes.

 

[Fairfax]

Multiplayer games, on the other hand, HAVE to be balanced.

Not really. The vast majority of the popular competitive games aren't balanced at all. They're fun and reward skill, even if some builds/heroes/weapons are significantly stronger or even destroy most of the cast.

3) Another Sawyer's big problem is that he constantly tries to balance Singleplayer games.
They don't have to be balanced at all. Players should have fun in them above all else.
So what if they are uber godlings at the end of the game! They deserved it, it feels great and rewarding!
Multiplayer games, on the other hand, HAVE to be balanced.

Not this fucking canard again.

Single-player games do have to be balanced. Why? Because if there's not, there will be one dominant rote strategy that you'll just mechanically apply to win, which is dull, not fun.

Case in point: Arcanum. Who in their right mind thinks it would not be improved if they did something about Harm spam and the generally wildly OP magick?

Not balanced =/= broken.

Ideally speaking, RPG only have to be balanced to the extent that no class/build is too easy and overcentralizes gameplay. Sawyer tried to balance PoE by going out of his way to prevent busted builds, weak builds, dump stats, etc. Busted builds/characters are fun, and when designed right, they reward players for having a deep understanding of the game's mechanics. It certainly doesn't help that most devs want to "balance" things by nerfing powerful stuff instead of buffing the rest.

Anyone that says Balance is not a good thing is a moron. However making all choices for character creation/development equally viable is terrible design. D&D suffers from the opposite problem; it makes certain builds too overpowering and as a DM I have to create content that nullifies some of that. But while I would support a Monk optimally built for RP reasons, I *would* let the system punish a monk-bard hybrid.

What balance ought to mean is that the game provides enough *content* for each attribute/skill. if you provide a swim skill then there has to be enough water in the game to actually use the skill.

Another way one can look at balance is to make great power come with great trouble. Powerful magic should require meaningful sacrifice of some resource (turn time, rare ingredient etc).

Making all builds viable in traditional CRPGs is not necessarily bad. Non-action RPGs are about character progression, not player progression. That means there's only so much you can change through skill alone, unlike action games where a good player can make anything work. However, bad decisions in character creation should absolutely be punished. Bad builds should obviously be in for a struggle, but unless you offer respec options, it shouldn't be impossible to finish the game with them.