The Anti-Idea: All classes and races should not be equal

[ibanix]

All classes, races, and talents are not as useful, interesting, or equal. This is OK.

By 'equal', I mean "as powerful / as interesting to play / have the same synergy".

There seems to be a movement going to alter the game such that every class (and to a lesser degree, races) has some sort of equivalence in play, as if every one should be an equally interesting and rewarding play. I don't think this is correct. Here's why:

1) Some classes should be for beginners. They should be easier for newcomers. This is likely to make them less interesting and/or boring for veterans. This is OK. (This is somewhere between Bulwark and Berseker right now).

2) Some classes should be for advanced players or challenge. These should not be easy for newcomers, but balanced toward players who know a lot more of the nuts and bolts of the game. This is OK. (For race, this is currently Ghoul).

3) Some classes will give you a huge number of choices, and learning to play them may mean learning which of them work together well, and which will fail horribly. Not all choices will be good ones, and you'll do badly if you chose badly. This is OK.

4) Some classes will simply be much harder for a lot of players to learn how to play *well*, because it's not what they're used to, or they have an unusual play style. This is OK. (Rogues fit this for a lot of people.)

Having sub-optimal options gives people great challenge choices. Are there a lot more wins for Wildfire Mage than for Ice or Storm? Absolutely. Should Ice and Storm get adjusted around until we have equal numbers of wins any everyone agrees they're all equally as good? Absolutely not.

[bpat]

I agree that they don't need to all be equal. They should all be viable and fun though. It's okay that AM, AB, and PM are far stronger than the other classes except maybe Reaver. However, a class or race should not be intentionally left in the trash tier (like Archer) for no reason other than to intentionally create imbalances.

I actually agree with all four of your main points, and I do have something to add for each.

1) Berserker fits this nicely, much better than Bulwark does (since Bulwark gets owned by non-physical damage). However Berserker is strong and fun despite being simple. Bulwark is neither strong (fact) nor fun (opinion) compared to Berserker. This in my opinion is because Berserker is a better designed and more coherent class. I'd like for Bulwark to be more like Berserker in that way, which I believe the Bastion addon attempts to do.

2) Highest skill cap class is probably Arcane Blade, Paradox Mage, or Temporal Warden. Arcane Blade is very hard to play for beginners while Paradox Mage is not and TW is somewhere in the middle. Despite my issues with AB's design, I think from a balance perspective this is fine as these are all very powerful classes.

3) I think it's fine that choices exist, but there should be something redeeming in all talents. This is probably unrealistic but it's be nice. For example, Corruptor's Corrosive Worm and Poison Storm talents used to be awful and they were buffed. Now Corruptor has more options and that's cool! I think choices should be "I unlocked Superiority on my Berserker but it didn't fit my build, next time I won't do that" rather than "I unlocked Superiority on my Berserker but it's useless and I'll never unlock it again".

4) Doomed is an example of this done right, because it's very unconventional while still being strong. Alchemist is an example of this done wrong, because it's unconventional while being clunky and weak.

[Razakai]

I don't think there's inherently a problem with this, but the gulf is too wide between some classes. And some classes just don't offer anything useful to the game. Like bpat said, Bulwark has an issue where it's obsoleted by Berserker as a fun beginner class, and offers little to an advanced player compared to something like Guardian Sun Paladin.

Talents shouldn't be identical in power level, but there's no reason for them to be massively weaker within a class. Having weak talents buffed opens up more viable, interesting builds. Like pre-Brawler buff, Grappling was incredibly awful and taking it was just a mistake new players made. Now Grappling is fun and viable.

Other classes just don't quite deliver on the fantasy. Take Temporal Warden for example - I don't think anyone can complain that that was heavily reworked to better fit the intended themes. While that sort of level of rework shouldn't be done often, reworking poorly designed trees and adding new ones can be beneficial to expanding playstyles.

[Atarlost]

I would put things differently.

Game elements that normal players enjoy should not be uprooted to satisfy insane/madness players.

Balance should be targeted at normal and nightmare where most people play.

The AM and AB aren't far stronger than other classes on normal because their lack of sustained/passive defense is a serious weakness under the normal assumption that autoexplore exists to be used and that players don't have perfect attention to detail 100% of the time. As far as I can tell the 5 digit aegis shields must be a product of better loot from more uniques and rares. If I see 4 digits at endgame it's barely. ABs keep getting nerfed to satisfy the elite madness players, but they were already glass cannons on normal and they never get any durability or QoL compensation.

PM is apparently nuts at all levels and could probably indeed stand a nerf, though.

[jenx]

I would put things differently.

Game elements that normal players enjoy should not be uprooted to satisfy insane/madness players.

Balance should be targeted at normal and nightmare where most people play.

The AM and AB aren't far stronger than other classes on normal because their lack of sustained/passive defense is a serious weakness under the normal assumption that autoexplore exists to be used and that players don't have perfect attention to detail 100% of the time. As far as I can tell the 5 digit aegis shields must be a product of better loot from more uniques and rares. If I see 4 digits at endgame it's barely. ABs keep getting nerfed to satisfy the elite madness players, but they were already glass cannons on normal and they never get any durability or QoL compensation.

PM is apparently nuts at all levels and could probably indeed stand a nerf, though.

Leave PM alone . It is good to have an OP class, and the thing it is takes lots of play time to master. I lost twice at final battle on Insane before winning the third time.

[bpat]

I've made this point a bunch of times elsewhere but balancing for Insane causes Normal and Nightmare to be balanced to, and the only people who say otherwise are people who have never tried Insane at all and thus have no idea how Insane works so their arguments hold absolutely no value and shouldn't be humored. Unless something utterly stupid is done like making a talent that instakills anything lower rank than Rare then balancing for Insane is best since it causes lower difficulties to be balanced by extension. Heck even talking about balancing for Normal isn't useful since terrible builds and classes in the right hands can faceroll through Normal. Atarlost it is clear that you don't understand how Insane works at all based off your incorrect assumption that people don't autoexplore and don't miss details ever, because as a veteran of Insane I can state with certainty that I always autoexplore and miss details all the time. Also literally no one is wanting to remove fun stuff for the sake of Insane/Madness. I've played more Insane than almost everyone who plays this game and I rarely advocate nerfs, aside from short staves which are just problematic design. If you look at my posts on this forum you'll see most are buff suggestions.

Also I agree with jenx about PM, PM's high skill cap is part of the appeal and part of why it's so strong.

[jenx]

i always autoexplore on insane RL, I'm too impatient to do otherwise. Even with skirmishers, which is why I never get very far with skirmishers on insane, lol

[HousePet]

I'm starting to wonder if bpat is confused about what balance means. But since everyone else's opinion is invalid, I guess it doesn't matter.

I disagree that all classes and races should not be equal, as these classes (and to a lesser extent races) are used by npcs.
If a class is significantly more powerful than another, it is possible that a random rare or boss will be significantly more powerful than the player in an unintended location. So what is normally only important for balancing in a multiplayer game is important for balancing in this game.

[bpat]

Edit: Removed since I was frustrated when I made this post and said some pretty uncalled for things. I still disagree with HousePet's views on balance, but I ought to do so in a more civil way.

[HousePet]

Good work on not realising that as I do developing a lot I have Debug mode always enabled, therefore not recording any details to my profile.

[Sheila]

All classes, races, and talents are not as useful, interesting, or equal. This is OK.

It's basically okay to stop reading at this point because of how wrong this statement is. Still read your whole post though.
There's absolutely nothing okay about things not being useful or interesting.

1) Bulwark is simply old and dated design that hasn't aged well, doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved for no reason at all. A class can be easy while remaining interesting, like shield sun paladin.
Things can have low skill floor and high skill ceiling, this is true for a lot of things in the game.
Plus, if you really thought bulwark was 100% okay you wouldn't have made an addon to make it "more viable".

2) Sure, but only as long as they're made with this in mind, not an unintentional underpowerment staying so. Ghouls being the worst race in the game is a combination of factors, most inherently runes being bad compared to infusions, this isn't intended and it's okay if it improves, and it should.

3) So you're okay with having less class depth and less choices? Why? False choices are not real choices and are just fluff which isn't real content. This is NOT ok.

4) Rogues simply rely on a lot of mechanics that don't work well as far as defense goes; Stealth, light armor, and defense (stat). They're not meant to be "much harder". They're a starter class in need of a rework, like archer and bulwark.

I think there's nothing productive about this thread other than a contrarian rant and the wish for stagnation and lack of improvement in the game.

[bpat]

I pretty much agree with Sheila. While ibanix's initial points sound alright, it's no excuse to have intentionally weak classes or intentionally bad design. Bulwark and Rogue are just bad because Bulwark just dies to anything that doesn't do physical damage and dodgetanking is fundamentally a weak mechanic in roguelike games and this is no exception. Rogue isn't a good example of a high skill cap class, it's just outdated and strange design. Bulwark isn't a good example of a beginner class, it just has so few useful talents (just Assault, GWF, and Step Up really) that playing it is very linear.

[Tryble]

All classes, races, and talents are not as useful, interesting, or equal. This is OK.

Having uninteresting, un-useful classes is bad.

Now, if you wanted to say is that homogeny is bad...
This, I can agree with this absolutely. A variety of straightforward and complex classes, tons of unique mechanics, lots of possible build options, this is all good stuff. To make all classes functionally identical is a waste of the diversity among characters in the game. Players all find different stuff enjoyable to play, and there's fun in working around the weaknesses and limitations inherent to classes.

But, to leave what should be viable options in the trash can just because we need 'trap' options is pointless at best, and deliberately hostile to new players at worst.

Having sub-optimal options gives people great challenge choices. Are there a lot more wins for Wildfire Mage than for Ice or Storm? Absolutely. Should Ice and Storm get adjusted around until we have equal numbers of wins any everyone agrees they're all equally as good? Absolutely not.

If there are entire trees which are garbage, why do they exist in the first place?

I have a question. If every class in the game was suboptimal trash and there existed one class, one build only that worked well at all, would that be okay? If you don't think so, then you're against your own point, differing by the degree. Why shouldn't Storm Mages be a viable path? There is literally no benefit to anyone by having trap choices. If Storm Mages, etc., are unsalvageably bad, remove those trees from the game.

I genuinely don't understand why you feel this way.

[bpat]

I completely agree Tryble, there's no reason for stuff to be so bad it becomes a challenge option. The "challenge option" is difficulty setting, end of story. You can do intentionally bad builds like Antimagic Archmage for a challenge if you want, but something presented as a legitimate option like Storm should always be a decent choice. If someone proposes an interesting buff to Storm to make it compete with Wildfire without outclassing it, there's no reason to not make those changes.

It's worth noting that ibanix believes no prodigies deserve buffs except Lucky Day. It's been hard to take his suggestions on balance and design seriously after that, but I still read this post and upon reading it I realized I disagree way more than I initially though I did, because his main four points seem reasonable until you realize he's basically saying that no more patches are needed ever because ever single thing in the game falls under at least one of those points and is therefore okay.

Bulwark linear, boring, and underpowered? Beginner class. Archer linear, boring, and underpowered? Beginner class.
Bulwark bad? Challenge class. Dwarf bad? Challenge race. Insidious Poison Inscription bad? Challenge Inscription. Lucky Day bad? Challenge Prodigy. Crystal Focus bad? Challenge item.
Storm worse than Wildfire? Trap option. Stoning Poison worse than Crippling or Numbing? Trap option. Teleport Rune worse than Phase Door? Trap option. Unbreakable Will worse than Draconic Will? Trap option. Bulwark worse than Sun Paladin? Trap option.
Rogue has such outdated design that only high skilled players can succeed? Unorthodox class. Alchemist has such outdated design that high skilled players will succeed? Unorthodox class. Bulwark has such outdated design that high skilled players will succeed? Unorthodox class.

Notice that Bulwark fits under every point there yet it's one of the most in demand of a redesign and buffs. While homogeneity is bad, and it seems like that's what ibanix's post is arguing, in reality it is arguing against changing the game in any way at all.

[Blakmane]

A lot of traditional roguelikes create difficulty gradients by having a natural progression in 'challenge' between classes and races, e.g. DCSS, Adom and Nethack. There is no base assumption that classes will be comparable to each other.

ToME creates difficulty gradients by having different difficulty settings. There is a base assumption that classes will be comparable to each other, not least because class talents are also used by enemies.

Thus, the central premise of the original post, that "Having sub-optimal options gives people great challenge choices.", is rooted in a confusion between these two types of difficulty design. The 'challenge choice' in ToME is already represented by the normal->madness difficulty gradient so there is no need to design intentionally poor choices to give 'challenge'. In fact, this is counterproductive because it limits viable options for those who actually *want* challenge.

It also suffers from a fallacy that Tryble already identified. Balance =/= homogeneity. Asymmetric balance is a thing.