作者：Craig Morrison

“石头过强，布刚好，剪刀太弱”——开发者经常收到类似的反馈信息，这也很好引出接下来关于平衡性的问题。为什么关于平衡性，玩家和开发者总是会有不同看法？

讨论话题

主要基于这样的实况：根本来说，玩家通常觉得表达“平衡性”的最佳方式在于平等性。这通常被过度概括成希望组合里的两角色具有50/50的胜出或失败可能，或呈现相同表现。

问题是这种方式鲜少将RPG机制考虑在内。

这里发挥作用的元素有很多，所以就让我们深入探究其中若干要素，弄清为什么玩家和开发者在面对平衡性问题时会有不同看法。

简单道理

RPG中的平衡性和平等性不是相同概念。

RPG机制的不同要素无需进行相同程度的平衡。

所以RPG机制中的角色平衡不是基于两角色具有50/50的获胜或失败机会的平衡概念。这里发挥作用的要素很多，所以下面就来深入探讨。

剪刀石头布 from websbook.com

剪刀/石头/布模式

传统剪刀/石头/布模式，算得上某种完美平衡模式，玩家会面临相同获胜/失败/平局机会。这从未发生改变。这个模式非常绝对，这也是为什么它不是很适合RPG机制的原因。玩家通常不喜欢绝对情况，总是输掉特定回合无法让基于RPG机制的游戏变得有趣。RPG机制通常包含随机要素。所以即便这类游戏逐渐融入类似于剪刀/石头/布模式的元素，它们依然鲜少纯粹基于此模式。

第一人称射击游戏（例如《军团要塞2》显然以更纯粹的方式运用此平衡概念，因为它们无需担心RPG进程。

三位一体模式

其中一个问题是，在过去20年中，基本的剪刀/石头/布模式因MMO所谓Tank、医治者和dps“三位一体”模式而受到扭曲。三位一本模式让我们改变了对剪刀/石头/布模式平衡性的看法。MMO理论教父Richard Bartle去年曾基于概念起源就此发表评论，以及题材发展如何强化此概念，他的相关文章非常值得一读。这意味着，从基本层面看，由于角色已经因发展而改变，剪刀/石头/布模式的基本平衡性不再有效。现代RPG机制同剪刀/石头/布设计理念存在的唯一共性是它们基本围绕这样的相同概念：一元素弱于某元素，但比另一元素强。

只要这变成能让玩家损害对手的元素，游戏内容就需要融入无法让玩家直接打败对手的其他要素。你如何让这些次级技能（游戏邦注：如群体控制、治疗、减轻伤害和操控数据，让它们同损害联系起来）处于平等地位？答案当然是RPG机制不会做出此尝试。游戏通过这些技能创作出不同角色，不是所有这些角色都能直接造成破坏性。

RPG机制

RPG内容本身融入的其他元素是前进性及玩家如何逐步获得能量。这是多数RPG机制设计的核心内容，进一步促使RPG游戏脱离纯粹的剪刀/石头/布理念。这里是若干具有前进性及反映这些概念的机制，《激战》就是很好的例子，游戏每次都会要求玩家选择X数量的技能，将焦点由锁定更多数量转移至瞄准不同策略，融入基于不同方式创建的角色。但即便那样，就这些技能获得的方式来看，游戏在包含这些纯粹运用这些技能的“本领”外还融入前进性要素。

《无尽的任务》和《网络创世纪》之类的主流传统MUD游戏及《魔兽世界》、《永恒之塔》和《Rift》之类的现代MMO游戏都将前进性作为机制的组成要素。

rift from aion.mmosite.com

但就“平衡性”的共识来说，玩家通常都已接受进程会影响平衡性的观点，但他们并不希望多变的进程等级具有平衡性。处于X等级的玩家和处于Y等级的玩家不会处在同等地位的观念是RPG前进机制的核心要素。

学习曲线

简单来说，平衡性的最佳呈现方式是包含特定不平衡因素的既有设计。

这听起来有些矛盾，是吧？

深入探究就会发现情况并非如此。设计师通常需要提供既吸引休闲玩家也迎合迎合硬核玩家的角色。在MMO游戏中，角色通常存在差异，最常体现在不同机制，这意味着某些角色对玩家来说“简单”（但依然能够取得突出表现），但有些则需要借助更多技能和时间实现。

设计师需确保游戏通俗易懂、富有趣味，顺应玩家的各种技能。这意味着游戏设计需融入一定的不平等，因为玩家“熟练掌握”某项更难技能，并不一定能够产生硬核群体所期待的那种强大威力（否则那些“更简单”的角色就算获得了极具竞争力的点数，也无法与之抗衡）。

所以这一点也加深了玩家对开发者有意融入不平衡感的印象。

竞争要素

最后一点是玩家争议最大的内容。MMO游戏属于社交类游戏，设计师很多时候都会围绕玩家群体，而非单独的1v1战斗“平衡”内容（游戏邦注：尤其是PvP模式）。在基于角色的机制中（其中角色通常有非常明确的任务），就如我们之前在“三位一体”中提到的，总是会有某些角色在团队情境中表现更好，但无法同dps更高的角色对抗。

人们非常不喜欢自己常碰到的不平衡感觉。当出现特定角色对抗另一防卫能力较低角色的1v1模式时，游戏通常会出现针对此角色的厌恶感，这些角色就会变成公敌，从而出现这样的情况：玩家不在乎设计师出于最佳团队结构目的创造的复杂角色关系，而是在乎可恶角色总是比自己略胜一筹。

这就是设计师和玩家的分歧所在，有些角色始终是团队杰出成员，是杰出战斗小组的必要成员，但当玩家烦于自己又被某角色打败时，他们就不会再考虑到这一点。

设计师需把握的关键是尽可能设计优质体验，融入丰富玩家和策略的组合，但若他们想要“完美”的1v1平衡感，那么游戏就会开始丧失去角色机制所呈现的趣味和策略选择。

内容发展

也就是说，设计师需要在角色设计中保持一定灵活性。若角色过于局限，它们在MMO情境中就不那么有趣。玩家希望自己能够带来一定的破坏性，这是此类题材过去几年来有所提高的地方。很多现代MMO游戏都向角色生成破坏力的选择，这一点不如于在《无尽的任务》等过去的游戏中，牧师的主要任务就是治疗他人。现在这些游戏至少可以通过技能树、角色构造及其他选择丰富玩家的游戏体验。由于MMO游戏的PvP元素越来越多借鉴FPS题材的内容，我们开始看到游戏设置逐步朝更纯粹的剪刀/石头/布模式靠拢。

未来这两种模式有可能会出现某种形式的结合，但就目前来看，牢记融入RPG角色机制的元素非常重要。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

The contradictions of class balance…part 2

by Craig Morrison

“Rock is overpowered, Paper is balanced, Scissors is underpowered – signed: Scissors”

The above quote can indeed sum up a good deal of the feedback that developers receive (and can probably summarize all those pretty words used in part one of this post down to an annoyingly accurate sound-bite!) but it does provide the perfect introduction to the next part of these musings about balance…why is it that players and developers often have a very different idea of what balance should be?

The problem we’ve been discussing…

It essentially based on the fact that at a fundamental level, players often feel that the best way to express ‘balance’ revolves around equality. It is often over generalized to a kind of wish for things to be defined in terms of any combination of two classes having a perfectly 50 / 50 chance of winning or losing against each other, or achieving the same performance in a specific measurement the player cares about.

The problem is that such an approach doesn’t always take into account the scope of an RPG system.

There are many factors that come into play here, so let’s take a look at them and examine some of the reasons why developers and players are often thinking about different things when they talk about balance.

The simple truth

Balance, in RPG terms, and equality, are not the same thing.

The different elements within an RPG system don’t actually have to be equal to be balanced.

So class balance in an RPG system is not actually based on a ‘balance’ that would be defined as any combination of two classes having a perfectly 50 / 50 chance of winning or losing against each other. There are many factors that come into play here, so let’s take a look at them…

Rock / Paper / Scissors

The old Rock / Paper / Scissors model…perfect balance of a sort…you always have the same odds of winning, losing or drawing. It never changes. It is also absolute, which is why it has never actually sat totally comfortably with RPG systems. Players generally don’t like absolutes, the idea of always losing a certain matchup simply wouldn’t be fun for a game based on an RPG system. RPG systems usually have an element of random chance to them. So even if they have, over time, adopted elements that can be compared to the classic Rock / Paper / Scissors model, they still rarely take it in purist form.

First person shooters (in particular team based shooters like Team Fortress 2) definitely use that concept of balance in a much purer form, because they don’t generally have to worry about RPG progression.

The Trinity factor

Part of the problem is that somehow, over the last twenty years that basic ‘Rock / Paper / Scissors’ model got twisted by the invention of the so called ‘holy trinity’ of MMO classes, tanks, healers and dps (with purely support roles like crowd control and buffing / debuffing as complicating accessories). The problem with the trinity from a balance perspective is that they have effectively moved us away from what makes the Rock / Paper / Scissors elegant in the first place. MMO theory godfather Richard Bartle commented on this last year, in terms of the origins of the concept, and how the development of the genre reinforced it, well worth a read. It means though, that at a fairly fundamental level, the basic balance of the rock / paper / scissors model is no longer really valid as the roles have significantly changed. The only thing that modern RPG systems really have left in common with the old Rock / Paper / Scissors design idea is that it vaguely revolves around a similar concept of one thing being weak to one thing and strong against others.

Once it becomes about something more than just the damage you do to an opponent, then there are other factors that have to be considered in balance that don’t necessarily help a player defeat another directly. How do you equalize all those secondary abilities, like crowd control, healing, damage mitigation, stat manipulation and make them somehow relative to damage? The answer of course is that most RPG systems don’t even try. They take those abilities and create very different roles out of them, and not all of those roles relate directly to causing damage.

The RPG factor

The other element that RPGs inherently bring to the table is progression, and how players gain power (however that may be defined) over time. It’s a core part of how most RPG systems have been designed, and further moves RPG based games away from the purity of that original Rock / Paper / Scissors concept. Now here some systems can accommodate progression and reflect those concepts, Guild Wars would be a good example, by forcing the selection of only X number of skills at a time, they switched the focus from bigger numbers to different tactics and embraced the roles they could create in different ways. Even then however, due to the way that those abilities are earned, there is still a progression above and beyond the pure ‘skill’ of using those skills.

In games that took their lead from the old MUDs, titles like Everquest, Ultima Online and eventually modern MMOs like World of Warcraft, Aion, and Rift have progression as a much more integral element of their systems.

In terms of a shared understanding of ‘balance’ however, players generally accept the fact that progression effects balance, and they don’t expect variable levels of progression to be balanced. The concept that a level X players isn’t equal to a level Y player is such a core part of RPG progression that players accept it. (Now some might prefer that more games moved away from that model, but it doesn’t change the fact that they accept the influence that it has on design)

The Learning curve factor

Then we come to the fact that, to put it simply, balance is often best served by any given design having certain imbalances built into it.

It sounds contradictory doesn’t it?

Not so when you think about it. Designers often need to offer classes that can cater to both more casual players and those that can offer more hardcore players a challenge. In an MMO there is usually a difference between classes, most often expressed through mechanical differences, that can mean some are ‘easy’ to player and still get good performance, and some that require more skill and timing to pull off correctly.

Designers have to make their games accessible, and fun, for a wide range of player skill levels. That means that it can be a good thing to have some classes whose mechanics ease players into the game, and provide an ‘easier’ option. Yes, that means that there is usually an inequality inherent in that design, as the benefits of being ‘skilled’ with one of the harder options available, probably doesn’t offer as much of a power difference as the hardcore crowd would like (otherwise those ‘easier’ classes wouldn’t be able to compete, when the whole point is to allow them to be at least somewhat competitive)

So this too adds to the players perception of inequality that developers have often included very consciously.

The dueling factor

This last one is usually the most contentious issue for many players. MMOs are social games, and there are many times when designers ‘balance’ content, in particular PVP, around groups of players, not just solo 1v1 combat. In a class based system where classes often have pretty well defined roles, as we mentioned earlier in relation to the so-called ‘trinity’, you invariably have some classes who have roles that might excel in group situations, but might not be able to stand toe to toe with a high dps class.

People really don’t like perceived inequalities that they feel effect them every day. Every time that certain class is set upon 1v1 by one of those classes against whom they might have little defense (whether due to abilities or due to attacks of opportunity) it slowly and surely builds up a resentment against that class….they almost become a nemesis…it creates a situation where they don’t care that the designers intended a complex relationship between classes for optimal team structure…they care that the damn [insert hated class here] always has the edge on them.

This is where developers and players most often disagree as certain classes will be excellent team members, and essential elements in a good combat squad, but none of that worth is really considered when the player is annoyed that he just got jumped again by [insert hated class here].

The key for a designer is to have the experience be good as often as possible, with as many combinations of players and tactics, but if they try and balance each and every class for one role – doing damage to another – that would be required to have ‘perfect’ 1v1 balance then they start to lose all the flavor and tactical options that are presented by a class based system.

The evolution thing

Now, that said, it is important for designers to ensure some flexibility in a class design. If the roles are too narrow they are often not as much fun in the context of an MMO. Players expect to be able to contribute general damage as well, and that is something the genre has improved at over the years. Many of the modern MMOs do provide options for most classes to output some decent damage as opposed to the original Everquest for example where a cleric was certainly doing little other than healing…at least now there usually is a choice hidden away in talent trees, character builds or other options, so there has been some evolution there. As the PVP elements of MMOs take more and more from the FPS genre we start to see some elements evolving back towards the purer forms of a Rock / Paper / Scissors model.

It is quite possible that in the future, the two will again converge in some form, but for now it’s important to remember all the elements that go into an RPG class system the next time you are tempted to question the genetic lineage of the developers because that damned [insert hated class here] has just ganked you again.（Source：usuallyfine）