I think the "trade-off" philosophy stems from the original pen-and-paper roleplaying games, specifically D&D. In these games, this philosophy makes sense, since generally the original idea (Monty Haul campaigns not withstanding) is that a group of players would play in a finite campaign, say, levels 1-7, and then the said campaign would end. In this scenario, each player would get an equal chance to truly "shine" - warriors in the first sessions/mages in the later sessions/thieves in tricky scenarios that the Dungeon Master could make certain came up, etc.

In CF, the playing field is not moderated by an old-fashioned Dungeon Master. There is little to encourage a weakling mage take his time through adventures to "earn" his way into power, and there's little to discourage a warrior from running around bashing things into the ground at lower levels almost indefinately. Granted, steps have been taken over the years to automate the role a 'Dungeon Master' might take, and I think that is definately a good direction.

Of course, we do like some trade-off in playstyle differences. Whether you are bold and aggressive, evasive and supportive, resourceful and clever, will lend itself to some classes over others.

When planning to make classes it is best to assume that people will choose the easiest way to get their PK kills. Now, let us consider the choice 2. So we have a trade-off balance where our exaple classes are mage and warrior(mage is weak at low levels and cannot compete with warrior, while warrior cannot compete with mage at high levels). I see this as an imbalance that turns tables after certain ranks, instead of being a proper balance. Let us think what happens, according the easiest way to kill-principle.

Low ranks:
- Magi find it easier to rank quickly past the difficult low ranks.
- Warriors find it easier to kill the weak magi at low ranks, instead of ranking to high ranks, where the magi would easily kill them. This discourages their ranking, so our easy path warrior chooses to level-sit.

High ranks:
- The magi will reave down in combat the warriors who have bothered to rank to the high levels. This leads to warriors avoiding magi.

As positive sides for this I see that the classes are easier to create as different, without resembling each other. The negative sides are our weaker classes constanly avoiding the stronger ones at all levels.

Let's consider the choise 1. then. The downside of this approach is that when you try to create the classes from scratch, and hold too much onto the class balance at each level, the work is difficult to accomplish, and there is a danger that the classes might resemble each other too much.

So I conclude this analysis by stating that while 2 is acceptable to certain amount(Our example is the starting situation, no tweaks yet done), work should be done to develop 1 from 2 without sacrificing the diversity of classes and having the level-dependent overpowerment that the extreme case of 2 presents. So I would see that the actual choise one 1 that seems to the players as choice 2(The classes are so different that it is hard to compare) is the right option. But if choise 1 is enforced from choise 2, there is a danger that the classes will become too similar, so I see small tweaks as the best way to develop the classes and the balance between them.

Not that I think many people care, but I'm leaning heavily towards #2. I think it would appeal to a wider range of players by the example you've stated. Newbs can pick something that's easy to get past X rank and then get into the tougher ranks more towards hero. Then when they've had enough of those low level tough guys, they can use what they've learned on a "late-bloomer" class to get past X rank and then when they get into the tougher ranks they've got the power to stay ahead of the competition (given sufficient effort).

Problem with a trade-off (weak at first then strong later) is that a skilled player will have no trouble handling the weakness, and then later you have a somewhat overpowered class in the hands of a skilled player, whilst the weaker classes are not unlikely to be in the hands of less skilled players.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to struggle through lower ranks of a necromancer's life to get to the good part. I'm not sure about every class, but some certainly need to be looked at.*

*As long as it doesn't turn into another conjuror situation, where just about anyone with half a brain can take out entire groups.

*As long as it doesn't turn into another conjuror situation, where just about anyone with half a brain can take out entire groups.

Could you cite a conjurer that has done this in the last few years?

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Are you playing devil's advocate, or do you really want me to find some logs for you?

I think we've all seen the lvl 30ish conjurors blowing people up simply by summoning the right angel/demon and running around with auto-tracking servitors.

Because I'm not aware of any conjurer that has been able to consistently achieve the results you're describing.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I agree, primarily for the reasons that you (and Dwoggurd) lay out. While I couched the initial post in terms of "newbie" vs. "veteran", it's also useful to think of it in terms of a "casual" vs. "addict" axis. If some classes are inherently weak early, but develop into a very strong choice late, the casual player suffers two drawbacks:

1) They may choose to avoid playing certain classes, because they don't feel they have enough time to make the choice worthwhile. Therefore, they end up with only part of the whole game at their disposal.

2) When they do play their preferred classes, they may run into stronger choices later on that they are poorly equipped to handle. Being an "addict" player carries enough advantages as is (area knowledge is fresher, you know your contemporary PCs better, etc.) without the inclusion of underlying mechanical advantages.

In short, no one likes a lopsided fight- just look at the comments when people post lopsided logs on the Battlefield. A system with varying rates of development creates two zones of lopsided fights (with a mid-level transition region where it's 50/50), instead of one continuous zone of close fights.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

While I'm by no means an expert, or even have much experience, I do agree that CF has a good hybrid of the two. There are many times when players have commented that X is overpowered, or Y can't compete at Z level, but I don't see why this is a bad thing. It's merely a bump in the road towards Hero, where the most ideal class balance is held. Personally, I think the mix of the two balancing systems you mentioned makes the game more interesting, without making too much of a gap between classes as they advance through the levels. It still allows for a lot of strategy and skill, without completely alienating Y class at Z level.

Splntrd

2) Each class should have its own rate of development, and
trade-offs are acceptable.

This is bad because:
1) The weaker class will avoid the stronger class at each level.
It would lead to the old-days situation where thieves play at 30, warriors play under 40 and mages rank straight to hero avoiding any confrontation at middle ranks and basically quit when they can't get safe group to rank with.

2) It hinders fair competition at any levels. No matter how skilled is "this herald warrior", he is going to have hard times agains "this master cleric".

Currently, most of people play at 40-50 and just pass low ranks as quickly as possibly. It is not good to have a certain superior class at hero.