Hmm, apparently I took the second step before the first.
In the thread on the PF forums the question was raised why class balance was important in the first place, and if class balance was needed for the game to be fun.
I have to admit that the thought never occurred to me that class balance could be considered anything less than a fundamental element of TFC (But then again I always thought that TFC wasn’t a deathmatch game either, so sue me for being naive). But on the other hand seeing that some people (most people?) don’t see the element of class balance as a prerequisite explains a lot.
If you look at TFC you will find balance established on different levels.
The most obvious level is the one which is perhaps the easiest to be overlooked: The balance between teams.
Usually both teams feature the same number of players. I’m not too familiar with the clan scene, but I assume leagues regulate the numbers of people playing on each team. This is a simple act of balancing the game and to keep the game fair for both sides (in many aspects fairness is relying on or connected to balance).
There is also the issue of maps. Have you ever asked yourself why most maps (CTF- or CTF-related) are built symmetrically? And why the makers of those maps which are not symmetrical have either been put in a lot of effort not to favor one side or - when not - created flawed maps (casbah comes to mind). Good asymmetrical maps are rare because it’s very difficult to balance them, to not give one side any kind of advantage over the other by design.
The next level is the balance between classes.
The game features nine different classes, all differing from each other in health, armor, speed, weapons and special abilities. It seems evident that each class was developed to fill a certain niche in the game, to assume a certain function which it can serve more efficiently than any other class. These are no absolute concepts, but in principle that’s the design. A scout is a primary offensive class, who’s main purpose is to grab and escape with the flag. He’s not suited for defense and not much use on clearing enemy defenses. On the same level the engineer is a primary defensive class because of his special ability, and his low health/armor doesn’t make him too useful for O (and sure enough some smartass will point out that an offensive engineer can work, but let’s face it, it’s rather rare on competent games, and that for very obvious reasons).
You can go through all the classes and quite well describe the main purpose they were composed to fulfill. The two classes which are found to play outside their original purpose are characteristically those which - IMO - are the least balanced: the soldier and the medic.
When you specialize a class to fill a certain niche you give him some advantages to serve this purpose. If you look at the special strength or advantage given to a class by its specialization you will often see that this strength is countered by the specialization of different class.
Like the engineer with his sentry, for example. The sentry is the most powerful weapon in the game and actually no class could go against it (this is simplified, I know, but allow me to make a point). But the deadliness of the sentry is countered by the ability of the spy to fool the sentry while disguised. In that aspect the spy is a balancing force to the sentry.
Another balance can be found in snipers and heavy classes. The main idea of snipers are to prevent heavy classes to go O. Due to the slow speed of heavy classes they are rather helpless against snipers. (The sniper’s role in TFC sadly never lived up his status in TF)
Other examples of balance would be EMPs and pipes, spies and scouts, spy grens or the medic’s ability to infect (Those do not have too much of an edge anymore today, but IMO those were, along with the c-grens, given the light classes as a - subtle - balancing factor when engaging the, usually heavy, enemy D. You know perhaps that originally the scout had flashbangs which were replaced by the c-gren because back in TF the flash-effect could be disabled by cheats - another example of the importance of knowing one’s game’s history).
So the main idea of the balance between the classes is that within all the diversity no class is too powerful, no class the ultimate class. If that were the case why bother with so many classes in the first place.
That is in theory, but of course that balance was always a main problem in TF(C) because it’s so difficult to achieve and to maintain. Today we face balance shifts which IMO damage the main concept of the game. But to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of such balance shifts requires people to understand the basic idea of balance in the first place.
We’re not quite finished yet.
Another level is the balance in each class.
Each class is a mix of strengths and weaknesses. In all cases you have a trade-off of health/armor and speed, making the stronger, more powerful classes slower than the lighter ones. Another balancing factor are the weapons. Strong, devastating weapons are rare, and often reserved to single classes (RPG, EMPs, pipes, mirvs). There is no logical reason (logical not in a realistic way, but in the way of the game’s goal) not to give a scout or medic stronger weapons, like i.e. replacing the handgrens with mirvs. This would make the medic or scout more powerful and better suited for his role, but at the same time would make the class itself too strong and therefore screw the class’ balance (and would additionally affect the balance between classes). Or look at the spy who’s main advantage - the disguise - is lost when he grabs the flag.
The design of the class system requires a class to have a weakness, because that’s often the point where a different class can effectively attack (which again also involves the balance between classes; both are highly interwoven).
This balancing even extends to the weapons itself: The power of the RPG is balanced by its necessity to be reloaded, the EMP only affects cells, a sentry has only a limited range of detection, etc.
So far I have not explained why balance is important, haven’t I? So far all I have done is shown that there are tons of balancing factors already established in TFC. I have never played TF, but I talked to enough TF veterans to know that TF went through a lot of experimentation to get to the class system which it eventually featured. All kinds of balancing factors have been tweaked, switched and turned upside down back in those days. What we have today is by no means perfect, but nevertheless it’s the result of a very long and occasionally painful process. Most people who started playing TeamFortress with TFC, perhaps even with later versions of TFC, have seen only minor and rudimentary tweaking of the classes and the class balance, in fact rather bug fixing than actual tweaking.
But the fact that the complex composition of balance in the game is no longer hitting you in the face (which obviously was the case back in TF) doesn’t mean it’s not important. IMO it’s the main factor which defines TFC! There are plenty of CTF games out there, amongst those some well designed and enjoyable ones. But none of those - if we ignore all those direct TF-descendents like Q3F for a moment - feature such an elaborate and sophisticated class system like TF. So CTF can be played in many ways. It does require some basic balancing factors (mostly on the level of level-design and team-numbers. But a class-based CTF like TF(C) can only work on the fundament of class balance. If you simplify the class balance you revolve backwards to simple CTF.
I’m not sure if that’s a satisfying answer. As I said, to me it was always perfectly clear that class balance is a fundamental and inseparable part of TFC - asking if TFC needs balance is to me a bit like someone saying "Beautiful building, but does it really need those pillars and supporting beams?" - so maybe I still haven’t succeeded in making my point.
Tell me, the discussion thread is still there ...
I guess I still have to comment on the question, if balance was necessary for the game to be fun. I’ll make it short ...
That is of course a very subjective matter. People are having fun with all kinds of games. I’m sure some people prefer ’simply’ CTF to TFC exactly because of the fewer balancing factors. I have also seen people having immense fun turning TFC into deathmatch with teams.
No, I think the question of ’fun’ is leading us nowhere when it comes to the issue of balance, because balance is what defines TFC in the first place. IMO it’s more important that people understand and accept the restrictions imposed by the design of the game. If some people feel uncomfortable with those restrictions, if balance is more a ’bug’ than a ’feature’, then perhaps those people should ask themselves if they are playing the right game in the first place.
RSS 2.0