Don't try and balance the abilities, but instead balance the strategies.

In this, "Strategies" means the combination of abilities and player choices that the player thinks will lead them to victory.

Most developers try to balance the abilities (or attributes) of a system. However, even in a system where all these are perfectly balanced, there can exist unbalanced strategies.

take for example a strategy game where every single unit is perfectly balanced. If the players pit units against units then the game is perfectly balanced and the player who use the right units against the right enemy units will win. However, a player instead decides not to engage the enemy units and instead does a "tank rush" and attacked the enemy base. This strategy beats the enemy each time if the enemy ties to engage unit on unit. This is not a balanced game even though the units are perfectly balanced. It is because the strategies are unbalanced that the game is unbalanced.

The problem is that strategies are emergent. That is the developers don't pre determine the strategies used in the game, but that they are created in how the player chooses to use the elements of the game. This makes it almost impossible to balance the strategies of a game.

Edtharan: I agree here, skills pools (abilities) and enviroment (is also made by players that cooperates) makes the player to choose the strategies. If the game was purely in dungeon lets say where as an archer I will have to deal the enemies from close combat all the time then it should be totaly balanced (items, general rules like no penalty from close for the archer) to the melee approach from close range. Or instead of dungeon consider huge speed of movement of the characters. So for a general game class to class balancing should be done across various environments which includes terains(probability of terain taken from lvl design with heavier weighted boss areas) and cooperating players... that are my few cents.

Btw: I 100 % agree with Tiblanc about RPS game systems, and the good news is that it can be invented, and it is quite elegant Ying Yang system that can even more than was asked here. Makes no longer beginner player a white noise as the stat are not runing to the skies and still has leveling. Allows by choosing skills hardcore and casual play. Allows mixing martial arts. Explains why 1 year Tai Ji student will lose to 1 year western boxing student (not a 100% I know) depicts what has he learned and what are his oportunities... But honestly even though it looks to me intuitive and natural I am not sure if the players would like to have 3D skill tree for example...

class based games are doomed to be imbalanced in the 1v1 aspect.[/quote]
They aren't doomed. They are just not meant to be played that way. Class-based games are meant to be played in teams. You can never beat a tank with a healer, but if you try 2 tanks+healer vs 3 tanks, the former might be able to completely annihilate the latter. That's what balancing is about in class-based games: you don't just take into consideration which character is best in 1v1 combat, but also have to take other roles and skill into consideration. A bad team will choose classes based on how well they handle them in 1v1 combat situations, a good team will choose classes based on how they can raise the chances of a win. If by having a healer character you can take out more enemies with your tank char than by having 2 tanks - you get a healer. Balancing is about the paths you can take to win the game. If each player has the same amount of paths they can take to win the game - that game is perfectly balanced. The game is won by making it so that the amount of paths your opponent can take to win diminishes until it's zero.

class based games are doomed to be imbalanced in the 1v1 aspect.

They aren't doomed. They are just not meant to be played that way. Class-based games are meant to be played in teams. You can never beat a tank with a healer, but if you try 2 tanks+healer vs 3 tanks, the former might be able to completely annihilate the latter. That's what balancing is about in class-based games: you don't just take into consideration which character is best in 1v1 combat, but also have to take other roles and skill into consideration. A bad team will choose classes based on how well they handle them in 1v1 combat situations, a good team will choose classes based on how they can raise the chances of a win. If by having a healer character you can take out more enemies with your tank char than by having 2 tanks - you get a healer. Balancing is about the paths you can take to win the game. If each player has the same amount of paths they can take to win the game - that game is perfectly balanced. The game is won by making it so that the amount of paths your opponent can take to win diminishes until it's zero.
[/quote]


This this this, a thousand times this. I get really tired of playing mmorpgs that are "balanced" and in which players whine and developers only create MORE stupid changes because people want to do 1x1 and base the current balance of classes on the results of fighting eachother on 1x1.

Groups that are actually playing their on roles are affected because "the healer heals, omg, thats op" "the tanker tanks, omg, thats op" "the mage deals too much damage, omg, thats op", hi, since when are rpgs based on 1x1? Go play a fighting game.

Classes and roles exist for diversity. The only way to have a balanced game in 1x1 is if every character is exactly the same. 1x1 is imbalanced when characters are different. Some characters are better than the others, some characters have useless skills, some players are able to bring out amazing power from a few selected characters, still no one complaing about imbalances on Mortal Kombat. But complain on World of Warcraft. Because you're supposed to be fighting on 1x1, right? 1x1 is whats unbalanced.


Anywhere.

A big mistake is to get bogged down in balancing a system and numerics for dps/ hps/ effective health. Most games (MMO) are tied to this because they have to produces massive ammounts of low cost RPG combat, to then produce a dynamic PvP system from these limitations, so it is a poor place to take refence from.

Someone mentioned strategies and I think this is the right place to start, although the term that I use is " the dance". As I think you have to look at the opposing players as actually being partners. And your job when designing the combat "system" is to make the the dance as vibrant and dynamic as posible. I also like the metaphor because when applying it the resultant gameplay, if your gameplay is not fluid but jerky and cumbersome then its clear to see what needs to be improved.