[TERA PC & Console] En Masse is closing, but TERA lives on! We will continue to support TERA PC (NA) and TERA Console until service is transferred. Stay tuned for more information.
[TERA Console] The Grotto of Lost Souls update (v85) is now live! Read the patch notes here: https://bit.ly/TERACon_v85
[TERA PC] The 64-bit update (v97) is now live. Check out all the changes delivered on August 11 here: https://bit.ly/tera64_patchnotes
[TERA PC & CONSOLE] Summerfest Part 2: The Beach Bash is on from August 11 until September 1! Participate in event activities to earn tokens redeemable for costumes, consumables, mounts, and more! Details: https://bit.ly/tera_sf20
HMMMMM balance
After much investigation I've found.... TERA IS LARGELY BALANCED (tera is balanced)
The reason I'm saying this is because tera doesn't have any unfair advantage for one class over the other. Hear me out.
When you're developing a game with pvp you must consider two things, a classes weakness and strengths. Evidently, weaknesses are focused on more than strengths because they pertain to leveling the gaming field. When a strength is introduced to a class there's a weakness that counter acts that. For instance, lancer has a powerful AOE stun but it can be dodged easily and it's a bit tricky to aim or slayer which hits like a truck but has alot of wind up for its skills. This is the checks and balances that are in tera and balance the game out. Ofc tera isn't 100% bqlanced. No game is balanced, even in chess, someone has to make the first move. Let's consider some reasons people say tera is unbalanced and the counter arguments.
1) I get one shot by (insert class)
- Nearly all dps in tera have a way of getting you to 0 in one aggression whether it be one combo or one shots. So the playing field is leveled here since there is no one class that cant someway somehow get another classs to 0 with one combo (with the exception of some classes that can tank entire combos but still take a considerable amount).
2) I'm in the best gear at +15 and I'm still getting destroyed by this other class whose in the low tier
- that's more of a argument of skill rather than balancing. I play Archer and beat +15 ambush lancers in dread (2 year old gear)
3) this class does simple things/uses space bar and does better than me when I actually have to try
- Well some classes are easier than each other. Just like how archer and warr are op in pve, but the difference is that archer is easy but warrior can pull higher numbers and is light years more complex.
On a whole the argument of one class being imbalanced because it's easy is pretty stupid.
4) this class hits hard in bg's with eq gear
- well, you have to factor in, all classes are very weak and slow in eq. Priest/mystic buffs help make up and are partly the reason people in eq can still one shot people (can't forgot crystals and glyphs too).
One thing I forgot to mention is that classes have distinct characteristics to fit their role. For instance, ninja has a ton of iframes because its a fast paced burn damage class. Take those away and you don't have a ninja. Just like how slayer will never get more mobility since it's a class with a big [filtered] sword, makes no sense to have them move at he speed of light if they have a big [filtered] heavy sword. Buffs like Icb are there to help the class and help it better fill it's role, though many if those are called bm (which itself is a type of balancing done by the community so one class isn't that much over powered than the other.)
Another thing to think about is that a game can be balanced at higher tiers (pro vs pro) of pvp but still unbalanced at lower tiers (decent vs decent). Probably why you see more noobs crying about how ninja is OP and hard to kill and pros of the same class just saying, "but they're so easy". Stuff to think about.
Idk, Tbh, I wrote this coz I was bored and a bit tired of ppl saying tera is completely unbalanced. Everyone has their opinion, I wanna hear yours.
The reason I'm saying this is because tera doesn't have any unfair advantage for one class over the other. Hear me out.
When you're developing a game with pvp you must consider two things, a classes weakness and strengths. Evidently, weaknesses are focused on more than strengths because they pertain to leveling the gaming field. When a strength is introduced to a class there's a weakness that counter acts that. For instance, lancer has a powerful AOE stun but it can be dodged easily and it's a bit tricky to aim or slayer which hits like a truck but has alot of wind up for its skills. This is the checks and balances that are in tera and balance the game out. Ofc tera isn't 100% bqlanced. No game is balanced, even in chess, someone has to make the first move. Let's consider some reasons people say tera is unbalanced and the counter arguments.
1) I get one shot by (insert class)
- Nearly all dps in tera have a way of getting you to 0 in one aggression whether it be one combo or one shots. So the playing field is leveled here since there is no one class that cant someway somehow get another classs to 0 with one combo (with the exception of some classes that can tank entire combos but still take a considerable amount).
2) I'm in the best gear at +15 and I'm still getting destroyed by this other class whose in the low tier
- that's more of a argument of skill rather than balancing. I play Archer and beat +15 ambush lancers in dread (2 year old gear)
3) this class does simple things/uses space bar and does better than me when I actually have to try
- Well some classes are easier than each other. Just like how archer and warr are op in pve, but the difference is that archer is easy but warrior can pull higher numbers and is light years more complex.
On a whole the argument of one class being imbalanced because it's easy is pretty stupid.
4) this class hits hard in bg's with eq gear
- well, you have to factor in, all classes are very weak and slow in eq. Priest/mystic buffs help make up and are partly the reason people in eq can still one shot people (can't forgot crystals and glyphs too).
One thing I forgot to mention is that classes have distinct characteristics to fit their role. For instance, ninja has a ton of iframes because its a fast paced burn damage class. Take those away and you don't have a ninja. Just like how slayer will never get more mobility since it's a class with a big [filtered] sword, makes no sense to have them move at he speed of light if they have a big [filtered] heavy sword. Buffs like Icb are there to help the class and help it better fill it's role, though many if those are called bm (which itself is a type of balancing done by the community so one class isn't that much over powered than the other.)
Another thing to think about is that a game can be balanced at higher tiers (pro vs pro) of pvp but still unbalanced at lower tiers (decent vs decent). Probably why you see more noobs crying about how ninja is OP and hard to kill and pros of the same class just saying, "but they're so easy". Stuff to think about.
Idk, Tbh, I wrote this coz I was bored and a bit tired of ppl saying tera is completely unbalanced. Everyone has their opinion, I wanna hear yours.
1
Comments
Just like how you don't expect a battle ship to beat a faster fighter jet. The ship can still win, but it will be harder
All that's left are the second-hand players that couldn't be relevant when pvp was relevant.
wait? o.O
You consider a classes strengths but don't consider the draw backs. Sorc is a caster class and is kind of the wizard of tera. Ill talk about it on a newbie level since as i said before "classes can seem more balanced at high levels of pvp" It has a 2 second invisibility frame and AoE capabilities. You forgot that once this frame is down Sorc has little other ways to defend against attack and sorc's cloth armor isnt making anything better. In tera theres a thing called checks and balances and its the reason certain classes have certain skills. Brawler has a aoe knock up to compensate with the fact that it is very slow and it helps brawler fill its role. stuff like that. Ninja has 2 million iframes to compensate that is a very fragile class and it also helps it fit the model of what a ninja is.
Gunners are pretty slow and clanky. In reality gunners are near the bottom of the spectrum since they hit very lightly when gear is eq. In owpvp gunners in gear hard rather hard but it would be the same for any class. Archer can one shot if your geared enough. But as i said before, some classes are just better than others at a newbie level. like rock beats sissors, but you can still beat gunners if your skilled enough.
ehhhhh already talking about classes being easier than others ;p
Agree. Poor Berserkers
Before, was lancers with high dps and high defense.
Then the reapers, spacebar smash and slaughterfest all around
Now gunners... Extreme damage for a ranged class.
Actually there is no point to make a pure melee class right now in pvp aspects.
Get better. I had a warrior in CS and 3s that completely tore up the other team.
not saying he was the reason, im saying he played a pretty horrible class in mass pvp and still rekt ;/
Its pretty mind boggling to see you try to berate ANYONE for ratings
Edit: Before you try to ask me what my ratings are
Getting better will stil make them OP and unbalanced.
But this is tipical of Korean games. They never care much about balance. L2 times was no exception. There will always be a class who is easy to use and OP.
I main a warrior too... Warrior Berserker and Sorcerer. Cs is not about killing anyways, the objetive is destroy or defend the anchorstone.
And pretty much of your success / failure come with your team and enemy team. That still will not fix balance problems.
My question is, what balancing problems? You complain about a class being unbalanced but have no evidence nor any way to fix it.
?????????????
....seriously??
Your arguments in this thread have been "if there's a large enough skill gap then x can beat y, so they're clearly balanced," "I once saw someone do a thing I didn't except them to be able to do because I thought their class was [filtered] there, they must be balanced after all," and "lol, balanced, just git gud."
So apparently under your definition of balance, if I go grab a pro and put them against a person who's never seen the game before, and the pro can beat the noob in any matchup/situation, the game is balanced? What?
If you're talking about balance, then it's a given you need to talk about equal skill levels. Don't assume that and I can always contrive a situation where x beats y all the time unless the game is completely determined by RNG. Do you see how absurd your assumptions are?
And since you're clearly confused about the definition of balance, let me help you out a bit. These definitions obviously aren't "the" definitions, and there's overlap, but you'll find them to be the common ones throughout game design. First, there's balance, which is the game's capacity to deliver to all players meaningful choices. Second, there's fairness, which is whether the players feel those choices are being made on equal ground. Third, there's viability, which is whether or not, or to what degree a particular decision, tactic, etc can result in a winning outcome.
So far all your "evidence," if your anecdotes about outlier cases can even be called that, and your arguments are all just about viability.