Addendum 1: Of Cottonballs and Flame-throwers (balance philosophy)

By Kevin Pietrzak

This section of the FAQ is a little bit different than the rest, dealing mainly with the whys of a good MMORPG as opposed to the hows. In order for a MMORPG to be good, it must be enjoyable to its players, and must have a purpose to continue on, as opposed to a closed game. A truly good system also has no absolutes. If you have the "best" sword, the only goal for the acquisitive people is to get a better sword, thus pressuring the game designers to create ever more effective weapons.

To illustrate what NOT to do, I created a game called Cottonballs and Flame-throwers. . It is in every way similar to Paper, Scissors, Rock, except there are only 2 states, Cottonballs and Flame-throwers. Every time you pick Cottonballs, and you opponent picks Flame-throwers, you lose. Every time you pick Flame-throwers and your opponent picks Cottonballs, you win. Any other outcome is a draw. Now most people would quickly figure out that if you wish to win, flame-throwers is the way to go. Sadly, most game designers would then label that exploiting, and stare in awe and wonder that the power gamers have all gone to a pure flame-thrower strategy.

One of the main reasons this is true, is because of the players with the most power desiring to be the "best" at whatever they choose, and to possess only the best in items. This is only natural for human nature, but it needs to be resisted in a game design. Any time there is a best item, that item first becomes the Holy Grail, but once obtained begins to lose its luster. The once proud acquisition needs to be replaced with an ever-bigger carrot, leading the game designers to upset the balance of the game, in order to make it interesting, and maintain people's interest.

An effective way of combating this tendency is to institute items on a basis of Paper, Scissors, Rock. Instead of having an item be the best, make the item the best against creatures with a fire base, but next to worthless against creatures of the night. This very real trade off makes for tough decisions, and for endless player arguments about which item is the best, simply because now there really is no answer. This must be a general philosophy, not an isolated one. Skills need to have real tradeoffs as well. Short-range weapons need to be lethal at short range, while ranged weapons need to be correspondingly lethal at a distance. Yes, that gives someone with a bow and arrows a huge advantage in an open environment, that is WHY bows and arrows were invented. Likewise, spells need to have some leeway, to customize them to fit different situations. A relationship between casting time, recasting time, damage, fatigue (mana) and resistibility should be built, and while it doesn't have to be linear, it should make sense.

Similarly, in the tradeskill world, tradeoffs need to exist in a balance between variables. A durable item will weigh more than a fragile one, while expensive materials might make light and durable a possibility. Also, an item that is easy to create would use more raw materials than an item carefully constructed to use only the minimum amount of materials. However the item using a minimum amount of materials would take much more time to produce than an item built with excessive materials present.

All of the above examples are sort of obvious when you stop and think them through. However, what isn't as obvious is the need for the principle that all things have trade offs, including player skills. One of the main faults with a lot of games is that if a player wants, they can master all skills they need, without relying upon others. The reasons are simple, by relying on another, if they are not online, you can't do business. Additional concerns about being cheated or robbed enter in to the issue as well, especially for trades that are not immediately completed. In the real world, you would not find a doctor that was also an architect, contractor, lawyer, and finally a pharmacist. In a game, the same restrictions should exist. I might be able to give passable first aid, construct crude buildings, know portions of the legal code, and even be able to identify drugs with interactions, but I would be missing some of finer points of each profession. There is a hard requirement that all skills cannot be gained to master level, or else skills will be power gamed by so many as to not have unique positions in the world.

For any tradeskill system to succeed, I believe the following things must exist in a game. First, and most important, mobs cannot drop even comparable items. There is a certain amount of hassle in dealing with another character. Whether it is the fact that we must both be online simultaneously, the fear of overpaying, the fear of outright trickery, or the human side of personal dislikes, an NPC has a pre-built advantage over a PC merchant. Therefore if mobs can be used as a source of equipment, they will be, in almost total exclusion to PCs.

Next, a shockingly large portion of gamers know next to nothing about the economics of business, and so in order to prevent this from translating to a poor economy, real world techniques are needed. Barriers to entry need to be both economic (buildings required to do larger/better recipes) and game design (maximum amount of advancement per time). Also, gaining ability needs to be in large part separate from producing goods. The effect of these barriers will be to collectively ensure only people with the perseverance to overcome them will succeed, and therefore naturally limit competition, and keep trades a viable way to advance. The tendency of many in games is to sell their products at cost, in order to recover money, to make more items, to get higher skills. If the goal of making items instead is the item itself, then trades will focus on better items, not skilling up based on a difficulty ladder.

Finally, the result of a successful operation needs to be somewhat unpredictable. Instead of needing a master tailor to produce an item, the skill level of the individual needs to help determine the quality of the output. In this way, a novice might have a nearly impossible chance to produce a stellar item, but that is always a possibility. Likewise, a master is always capable of (rarely) turning out an imperfect item. These outcomes will cause a player's reputation to add a certain value to items. A truly master at their chosen art will be sought out eagerly, for that shot at getting "more" that what you bargained for. This too, will be enhanced by having a continuum of outcomes, for example, if every ac tunic from 1 to 25 were possible, you would buy what you could afford, and upgrade as you could. This generates a stream of trade sales, furthering the desirability of joining a trade.