@Beemann This is an interesting discussion. 
To say that without choices you limit personal expression is absolutely true. Understand that choice can come in many forms. As an example: A single weapon with multiple ways to use it OR a large variety of weaponry from which to select. Both are forms of choice. Both can potentially allow for expression. Both can be representative of a systems depth. That is what I am talking about.
I do understand what you are getting at though. Your core concern here. The type of system where there are tons of options but some are so much better than others, at the end of the day, only a few of the options are ever actually used. Essentially meaning there arent many REAL options after all. yes that does sound bad. Indeed some games with more open customization systems fall prey to that. I am not suggesting that doesn't happen at times I am suggesting that a game doesn't have to.
Just as some games with class based systems don't find solid balance either.
I think chess is a poor analogy for this conversation all around but I went with it. lol. For whatever it is worth my chess analogy illustrated that creating the combination of pieces and knowing their individual moves does not mean you know every way they will be used in concert. So you won't know every potential strategy in the game, which combos will be stronger or weaker, etc. In other words: Knowing every variable going in does not negate the unpredictability of what comes out. To get to that point takes play time.
It is a solution to that problem, if you take the same principal to it's logical conclusion throughout the whole system. As in, every piece of gear has both advantage and disadvantage. In such a system the idea of "optimal" is difficult to reach. Because what you gain from X you loose from Y.
In such a system slotting a "weaker" ability serves a purpose if you built yourself in a way that conserving power for abilities makes sense. Each ability does not need to be entirely equal in every way, it simply needs a reason to exist in ones build.
Think of it like one of those highly successful card game where stronger cards cost more resources tan weaker cards. Each card isn't apples-to-apples "just as good" as every other but can be an integral part of ones personal deck. Sometimes it's about fitting into the economy of ones overall loadout, sometimes it's about the synergy with something else slotted. The give and take, the high cost and low cost, the various classing of items, gear and weaponry...can all act as dials to create a form of balance.
The trick to that though is keep it simple where you can. What do I mean by that?
In armored core tank treads arent better or worse than reverse joint legs. They are different, ideal for certain build directions and not others. Depending on who you ask or what mission you are playing one style will prove to be the preferred choice. It's a good system.
Where balance goes off kilter is in the granularity. The 25+ different versions of tank treads and the 25+ different versions of reverse joint legs. That is where the clear "better and worse" versions of each reveal themselves. But that isn't because the system is free in letting you choose the legs you want, its because the system got too darn granular. It took solid classes of legs and added on a bloated system of numbers. (mostly to add vertical progression btw) I am certainly not championing bloat, I am however, a big fan of letting those larger choices that can define playstyles be more freely swapped than full on "character classes". At least for a game like Ember where it's about open world PVE.
That is not to say I don't like character class based games as well. The point is that I am a fan of both. I believe that both can and do work, just as both can and do sometimes not work. What I am trying to avoid here is an automatic dismissal of a "class-less" system based on the perception that it's too hard to balance to a solid degree for the team involved.
I'm aware of what points you have been stressing. My talk of perfect balance was not re-framing the argument, I was clarifying a point I made earlier about the ongoing pursuit of balance. It was but a single piece out of this larger discussion.
"necessary" is an interesting choice in word here. A game like LOL has become extremely successful in part due to reinvigorating their meta consistently. I would not say that game lacks depth. Alternatively team fortress 2 has done quite well with minimal additions over the years. I would not say that game has more depth or less than LOL, its just a different kind of depth.
Honestly I don't think there is just one way to go on how to keep a game going strong.
Oh. I though the conversation between you and I was more about the broader concepts of class based verses classless systems. Perhaps it was my mistake on that.
I do understand what you are getting at though. Your core concern here. The type of system where there are tons of options but some are so much better than others, at the end of the day, only a few of the options are ever actually used. Essentially meaning there arent many REAL options after all. yes that does sound bad. Indeed some games with more open customization systems fall prey to that. I am not suggesting that doesn't happen at times I am suggesting that a game doesn't have to.
Just as some games with class based systems don't find solid balance either.
I think chess is a poor analogy for this conversation all around but I went with it. lol. For whatever it is worth my chess analogy illustrated that creating the combination of pieces and knowing their individual moves does not mean you know every way they will be used in concert. So you won't know every potential strategy in the game, which combos will be stronger or weaker, etc. In other words: Knowing every variable going in does not negate the unpredictability of what comes out. To get to that point takes play time.
It is a solution to that problem, if you take the same principal to it's logical conclusion throughout the whole system. As in, every piece of gear has both advantage and disadvantage. In such a system the idea of "optimal" is difficult to reach. Because what you gain from X you loose from Y.
In such a system slotting a "weaker" ability serves a purpose if you built yourself in a way that conserving power for abilities makes sense. Each ability does not need to be entirely equal in every way, it simply needs a reason to exist in ones build.
Think of it like one of those highly successful card game where stronger cards cost more resources tan weaker cards. Each card isn't apples-to-apples "just as good" as every other but can be an integral part of ones personal deck. Sometimes it's about fitting into the economy of ones overall loadout, sometimes it's about the synergy with something else slotted. The give and take, the high cost and low cost, the various classing of items, gear and weaponry...can all act as dials to create a form of balance.
The trick to that though is keep it simple where you can. What do I mean by that?
In armored core tank treads arent better or worse than reverse joint legs. They are different, ideal for certain build directions and not others. Depending on who you ask or what mission you are playing one style will prove to be the preferred choice. It's a good system.
Where balance goes off kilter is in the granularity. The 25+ different versions of tank treads and the 25+ different versions of reverse joint legs. That is where the clear "better and worse" versions of each reveal themselves. But that isn't because the system is free in letting you choose the legs you want, its because the system got too darn granular. It took solid classes of legs and added on a bloated system of numbers. (mostly to add vertical progression btw) I am certainly not championing bloat, I am however, a big fan of letting those larger choices that can define playstyles be more freely swapped than full on "character classes". At least for a game like Ember where it's about open world PVE.
That is not to say I don't like character class based games as well. The point is that I am a fan of both. I believe that both can and do work, just as both can and do sometimes not work. What I am trying to avoid here is an automatic dismissal of a "class-less" system based on the perception that it's too hard to balance to a solid degree for the team involved.
I'm aware of what points you have been stressing. My talk of perfect balance was not re-framing the argument, I was clarifying a point I made earlier about the ongoing pursuit of balance. It was but a single piece out of this larger discussion.
"necessary" is an interesting choice in word here. A game like LOL has become extremely successful in part due to reinvigorating their meta consistently. I would not say that game lacks depth. Alternatively team fortress 2 has done quite well with minimal additions over the years. I would not say that game has more depth or less than LOL, its just a different kind of depth.
Honestly I don't think there is just one way to go on how to keep a game going strong.
Oh. I though the conversation between you and I was more about the broader concepts of class based verses classless systems. Perhaps it was my mistake on that.
Likes:
Pandagnome
