Needs Help: Competitive Balance

But how do the simpler setups mandate exclusion? Particularly in such a way that only a three-stat setup could address?

The difference between a two-stat setup and a three-stat setup is that the two-stat setup is broader (and thus more inclusive) while a three-stat setup is more specific (and thus eliminates ambiguity). If I thought a two-stat setup was the less inclusive option, I wouldn't be for it at all.

If speed can give you an extra turn, it will increase your offensive capacity. That's possible in some games but not others. In some RPGs, like the original Final Fantasy, one round=everyone gets one attack, and speed only influences the order in which characters will make their attacks (and possibly their evasion/defense). The later Final Fantasy games started moving away from "rounds" in favor of the "attack gauge" that filled at different rates and allowed characters to wind up with more turns.

edited 17th Sep '12 6:11:13 PM by Tyoria

Because there's a number of combinations it doesn't work for. I can seriously think of characters that fit nearly every combination. For a Speed/Defense example, I can think of Aoi Umenokouji of Virtua Fighter. But in her case, the speed and defense take the form of reflex and agility.

She's the third-lightest character on the roster (which means she eats a ton of damage when she gets juggled, so she "technically" has low health). Her foot speed is atrocious (slowest walking speed in the game) and both her attack speed and attack power are crap (slowest attack startup for a female character and lowest combo damage). However, where Aoi shines is Reversals. She has the ability to parry, counter, or reverse every single attack in the game with high/mid/low guesses—the majority of which have near-instant startup. Her counters don't do a substantial amount of damage (so if she guesses wrong, she's probably going to eat a 70% health combo) but she has so many of them and they come out so fast that eventually you make people afraid to attack her. If it weren't for that, though, she'd be substandard in all three areas.

edited 17th Sep '12 6:15:16 PM by KingZeal

We're talking about how speed relates to attack power. I thought that you were arguing that making +attack/+speed tropes were pointless and redundant because they were directly related to each other. I was making the argument that they were directly related to each other only in specific types of video games and that they still applied in other instances. If you're saying that their is no need to create a trope just because it doesn't apply to a specific type of video game, than you are obviously mandating exclusion.

Also, the two-stat system you proposed is not any broader than the three-stat one like you say it is because it only includes trade-off hi-lo tropes, but excludes tropes with only two high stats. The proposed three-stat system includes tropes with both 1-hi-2-lo stats and 2-hi-1-lo stats, so is actually inclusive in a way the two-stat system is not.

edited 17th Sep '12 6:25:01 PM by shiro_okami

I am arguing against the proposal of forcing all the competitive balance tropes to address three stats instead of two, because that's a mandated exclusion of any that don't use a third stat, as well as an exclusion of any archetype with a low/high/average setup as opposed to low/low/high or high/high/low. More tropes in addition to the two-stat tropes I am not opposed to at all.

Do you realize my final paragraph was directed at King Zeal's post and not yours?

Yeah, the two-stats cannot directly refer to three-stat setups of high/high/low or low/low/high. They can, however, be combined. I don't see how it is "exclusive" to have a setup that won't allow us to refer specifically to every single possible archetype — as you yourself has said, it's probably not necessary to have every possible combination.

edited 17th Sep '12 6:32:46 PM by Tyoria

I am arguing against the proposal of forcing all the competitive balance tropes to address two stats instead of three, for reasons already stated. Two-stat tropes in addition to the three-stat tropes I am not opposed to.

And I most certainly did not realize your final paragraph was directed at King Zeal's post. You didn't use an arrow. EDIT: It is there now, but wasn't there when you first posted.

I think the Lightning Bruiser, Mighty Glacier, and Jack of All Stats tropes have already demonstrated that those archetypes are very much real and necessary. And though you don't seem to agree, I really think we need a +attack/+speed/-defense trope. And exactly what do you mean when you say they can "be combined"? Wouldn't that normally refer to making a three-stat trope? Or are you just referring to a trope with two high stats?

edited 17th Sep '12 6:48:21 PM by shiro_okami

The arrow's definitely there. It's not huge and vivid or anything, but the color's not my fault. (Edit: I assure you at no point was there a response to King Zeal without the arrow. Maybe it didn't load on your browser right away?)

By "combined" I meant that if we had all six two-stat tropes, any high/high/low or low/low/high three-stat combination could be describable by putting two of them together. A character that is fast and has a lot of offensive power, but is weak defensively, is a Glass Cannon + a Fragile Speedster.

edited 17th Sep '12 7:21:05 PM by Tyoria

You mean putting the example in both tropes? I really don't like that idea. It's too redundant.

edited 17th Sep '12 6:52:39 PM by shiro_okami

Yeah, that.

What I want is to keep the two-stat setups as the simplest building blocks on which we may later erect more complicated structures. It's possible to refer to most builds using either a two-stat trope or a combination of two-stat tropes.

It is "redundant" in the case of combination builds that can only be referred to by using two tropes at once, but to those builds that are only referrable to by two stats, and would be excluded by a mandatory three-stat setup, it's "inclusive".

That's your basic trade off between a three-stat minimum and a two-stat minimum: one's more precise, the other's more inclusive.

edited 17th Sep '12 7:05:53 PM by Tyoria

Wait, what? Okay. Give an example of a character who doesn't use a third stat. As well as a high/low/average.

If "speed" isn't what influences how many rounds a character can take in an RPG setup, many RPG Glass Cannons are +offense/-defense/[irrelevant]

A lot of rogue-types lack the damage output of either blaster mages or pure fighters, but aren't squishy like the wizards and have high agility. +Speed/-Attack/~Defense.

I still think using some intermediary tropes with two high stats would be the better option, especially considering we already have one. I wouldn't mind if the tropes had only two high stats without a third, it would still be better than nothing. Worse comes to worse, we can always do a hi/hi-or-low/low-to-average option.

edited 17th Sep '12 7:16:16 PM by shiro_okami

?

Do you mean two high stats combined with a low third stat, as in Mighty Glacier?

Like I said, I like having the two-stats as the "basic building blocks". The idea that there would be some three-stat subtropes to those basic building blocks doesn't bother me. But we wouldn't be mandated to make one for every single combination in order to fill some "gaps" — just the ones that were recognizable and distinct archetypes like that one.

edited 17th Sep '12 7:25:33 PM by Tyoria

Yes, I was referring to Mighty Glacier, and a new +attack/+speed trope. Those two should be the only intermediary tropes we should need. It's not like there's going to be a whole big bunch.

edited 17th Sep '12 7:30:34 PM by shiro_okami

Then they're Glass Cannons. Why is this a point of discussion since we already have a trope for it?

At best, that has nothing to do with Competitive Balance then. That's more like an auxiliary character, like thieves in Final Fantasy XI or a "Leader"-type (stat-buffer/debuffer) in Dungeons And Dragons. Adds nothing to a team that isn't already there, but can come in handy if you need some sort of hijinx. But overall, it has nothing to do with balance.

edited 17th Sep '12 8:23:56 PM by KingZeal

To a question way back, I'm thinking that trying to keep the three pronged statistic demonstration is arbitrarily limiting the trope and resulting in misuse. The idea is simply too complex to be broken down so simply. Take Racing Games, what does attack and defense have anything to do with that (short of Death Rally kind of stuff)? Does handling, acceleration and top speed all fall into the generic "Speed" category?

I think that we need to divide the page by concept of how they achieve Competitive Balance rather than trying to say there are only X number of variations. For example, putting Jack of All Stats in the same category as Ryu and Ken (even stats all around) or Mighty Glacier with Stone Wall (slow speed to compensate for high durability).

Racing is its own issue. But even then, racing games tend to have cars that move faster but have lighter armor, do more damage when hitting other cars, but have lower speed, or can take more damage at the cost of being able to inflict it—and all the combinations in between.

Handling factors into it the same way that other forms of Difficult, but Awesome do, with the exception that there may be a way to make an awesome car less difficult (for example, improving the handling) that fighting games tend to lack (unless it's a game that allows Auto Combos).

It's a point of discussion because many of the three-stat solutions have proposed reworking the existing two-stat tropes into three-stat tropes. If Glass Cannon and Stone Wall are to be left alone rather than forced into either specifically slow or specifically fast archetypes, then it's fine.

I would say in an RPG setting a +Speed/-Attack and neutral defense type is typically in a "support" role, yes. That doesn't mean it doesn't relate to balance. It's just that I'm more familiar with those settings. At base, the character has sacrificed attack power for speed. They don't necessarily have to sacrifice defense power as well, or have high defense either.

But the trope is specifically about competitive balance. For example, The Medic in most games can be low in any of the three, or all of them. But as a support member of the team, competitive balance is a different beast where they're concerned. Usually, their job is to improve the defense of others. As such, they won't fit on a two or three-tier system. But they're an exception and not the rule.

EDIT: On further consideration, I think we may have a Missing Supertrope. Namely, Cooperative Balance. There's a substantial difference between trying to balance many opposing forces, and many cooperative forces. For example, in most RP Gs, there will be characters who aggro enemies, buff party defenses, use status effects, steal, heal wounds, etc. that has nothing directly to do with Competitive Balance and everything to do with team cooperation. The team as a WHOLE can be speedsters, bruisers, or something in between, but the individual members may excel at attack, speed, or defense and nothing else. And in a team game, you have buffers/debuffers which don't fit on the triad.

So for Cooperative Balance, we also have:

• The Tank: Aggros enemies and absorbs punishment.
  • Subtypes: Stone Wall (high damage resistance), Agile Wall (high evasion), Spiked Wall (uses status effects/counters to stop/reflect attacks)
• DPS: High damage output.
  • Subtypes: Nuker (powerful magic), Fighter (attack strength), Situational (backstabs, traps, damage-over-time, etc.)
• Support: Makes the other jobs easier.
  • Subtypes: The Medic, Buffer/Debuffer, Status effects, stealing, initiative, item use, etc. (Virtually unlimited)

edited 18th Sep '12 9:53:20 AM by KingZeal

Ok, I like the idea of adding a "cooperative balance" sister trope to "competitive balance". Competitive balance is about flat "me versus you", strength versus speed versus defense and all that. Cooperative balance is about characters with different roles being equally useful, but still depending on each other to form a strong group.

I do want to mention that I think Tanks that depend on counter techniques would fall under the Agile Wall archetype; typically dodging or countering fall into the same character. Can you expand on the "Status Wall"? I don't think I know of any examples of that. Is that meant to cover things like the Paladin in D&D 4e, where they just penalize attacks that don't target them? Because that isn't really a separate thing from a Stone Wall; the stone wall usually has some way within the game's rules to ensure that the enemy preferentially targets them, whether that's taunts or penalties or just a Cover mechanic where he can interpose himelf in front of an incoming attack against his friend.

Sure. A perfect example would be some sort of triggered ability like in Magic The Gathering where a creature that is attacked, takes damage, or is targeted forces a negative effect on the attacking enemy that either prevents that attack, prevents subsequent attacks, or punishes the attack hard enough to discourage future attacks. Like putting them to sleep, paralysis, reducing their attack, or even death/removal from combat entirely.

EDIT: I renamed Status Wall to Spiked Wall, because it seemed more witty.

EDIT PART DEUX: No, Agile Wall and Spiked Wall are two different things. An Agile Wall avoids getting hit at all, period. A Spiked Wall, though they may stop attacks, often trades a hit for another effect.

edited 18th Sep '12 8:50:05 AM by KingZeal

Poking around the forums, here are some tropes I found which would fit under a Cooperative Balance Super-Trope:

• Tanking
  • Stone Wall: (Absorbs lots of damage)
  • Agile Wall: (Avoids lots of damage)
  • Spiked Wall: (Discourages or prevents further attacks following an initial one)
  • Mirage Wall: Uses illusions/decoys to negate enemy attacks.
  • Aggro Wall: Keeping enemies focused on one teammate.
  • Covering Wall: Taking damage, status effects, or even death in place of an ally

• Damage Per Second (DPS)
  • Gradual Grinder (deals steady amounts of damage over time)
  • Glass Cannon: They can't form any other function BUT attack.
  • Berserker (deals heavy damage in chunks)
  • Combination Attack (needs a single hit to link several attacks together)
  • Synergy Assault: A multiple-teammate that does a greater amount of damage than the sum of its parts.
    • All Your Powers Combined (deal major damage together)
  • Nuker (deals massive amounts of damage in a single overwhelming attack)
    • Finishing Move
    • Instant-Win Condition
    • Special Enemy Predator: Specializes in taking out a very troublesome type of enemy.
    • Mage Killer

• Support Teammate
  • Status Buffer/Debuffer
    • Power Nullifier
    • Anti-Magic
  • The Medic
  • Logistics Specialist: Makes sure the party has what they need to be most effective. Often in the form of thieving, haggling, scavenging, mixing, etc.
  • The Face: Tends to avoid attritional combat/makes new allies/secures new resources.
  • The Solver: Opens locked doors, disarms traps, deciphers languages, and solves other obstacles.
  • Mission Control: Provides critical intel.

edited 20th Sep '12 1:37:27 PM by KingZeal

That's a nice idea but I wouldn't consider it to be a supertrope, more a companion trope or even a subtrope. The idea of Competitive Balance is that it doesn't matter which character you chose, all of them have specific strengths and weaknesses that keep them relevant against other. Hence all options are "competitive" against each other and you can chose which character suits you the best. The idea of Cooperative Balance is around team-based groups and without someone fulfilling a certain role you have a gap in your group skill set. It has nothing to do with choosing the type that suits you the best, as someone may be forced to play a role they aren't fond of.

I know some terms are used like The Striker (kind of a Fragile Speedster, moves fast and hits hard but can't take too much damage), The Tank (damage absorber, keeps the others from getting hurt and has either A LOT of health or regenerative abilities) and The Medic (speaks for itself).

edited 18th Sep '12 10:31:43 AM by KJMackley

It's not a supertrope to Competitive Balance. It's a super trope to all the things I listed below it.

But I don't see how anything you said made a -Attack/+Speed/=Defense character a nonexistent archetype within Competitive Balance. You didn't believe a mandated three-stat setup would eliminate viable builds by killing off the ability to refer to neutral stats by omission, so you asked for an example of a -Attack/+Speed/=Defense character. When I provided one, you declared it had nothing to do with competitive balance because the role that character typically plays is of "support" within games that use teams. That doesn't even make sense from the standpoint that party archetypes have no place within Competitive Balance and need their own trope. You could argue from that stance that The Medic or the status debuffer has nothing to do with Competitive Balance, those are roles within a party. It doesn't follow that you can say, "well in this RPG, the Medic is high in defense but low in attack, and The Medic is a support character, so because support characters have nothing to do with Competitive Balance, clearly we do not need to account for a high defense, low attack character within Competitive Balance."

If I knew a lot of racing games, probably I'd have come up with a different example. Any setting where speed is key is going to make sacrificing other stats for the sake of speed a viable build in direct competition.

edited 18th Sep '12 3:32:02 PM by Tyoria

Why don't we just stop using RPG examples, since nobody seems to agree on what examples are valid or not. The way Competitive Balance works in RPGs seems to be different from the way it works for everything else anyway.

edited 18th Sep '12 3:48:24 PM by shiro_okami