Relative Hero Power Level

Recently there's been a lot of discussion regarding the relative power level of Heroes and whether certain heroes are under/overpowered.

 

My question is does it matter if some heroes are stronger than others? It is a cooperative game after all.

As long as a hero is contributing does it really matter if they don't contribute quite as much as another hero?

We all win or lose together.

 

From a comics perspective we certainly don't expect Street Level heroes (think Mr. Fixer and ExPatriette) to be as strong as the main super hero teams (The Freedom Five).

 

I am not intending this thread to be a discussion on which heroes are under/overpowered but rather to see whether extreme balance is needed at all.

Good question! I think exteme balance is not needed, though extremem unbalance would suck.

I agree that there's certainly a level of unbalance that wouldn't be tolerable.

 

For me it's as I phrased above.

 

As long as I feel like I'm contributing then it doesn't matter to me if other heroes are doing a little more.

 

 

My guess it is not needed only if it`s official and there are rules supporting that. Like if all heroes would have a power level and there would be a minimum/maximum  power total recommended for a villain. There is nothing like this in this game. 

Balance isn`t an issue on the basic level but on some cases it may pose a problems for a product. If there are some heroes that are delibaretly created as a weaker ones and new player who is testing the game will play as one of them it may make game feel for him less atractive. It also poses a problem of cherry picking where you would never play as a weaker hero because it makes game less interesting. It`s a super hero game afterall so why take super and just leave hero? Balance is thing hard to gauge and ever harder to repair - but as my experience , i don`t saw any problems with it in sentinels at all. All heroes have a specific things that only them can acomplish - and that makes the game so awesome. Even more awesome is that there is no hero that is made only for one specifing task - like support. World of sentinels of multiverse is big and vast and if balance could endanger diversity - balance should never be taken seriously. But if the game is not balanced at all - it would pose problems too. So my take is - have a reasonable balance , don`t over do it.

 

Ultimately, I think the best indicator of hero balance is taking Christopher's challenge:

"You can beat any Villain, in any environment, on advanced, with any 3 heroes"

Some are going to have a harder time, but that's the way of the game...

 

Also, this topic reminds me of this extra-credits episode (watch them all, they talk about video games but it really applies to all gaming)

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance

I agree it doesn't really matter THAT much.  In fact I think the idea of having some heroes be "weaker" than others helps the game have different levels... as long as they are all fun to play. So if you dominate the game with one hero you might want to try doing so with a hero that is considered weaker. 

I don't think there needs to be an official ranking of heroes since that will just create a million threads saying how this ranking or that rankin is wrong. Within a few games you figure out which heroes give you what type of experience and you cater your game to that. Also, more experienced players can use the "weaker" heroes when playing alongside new players to give the team a more balanced fee, etcetera. I know there has been discussion ad nauseum regarding some heroes being too weak compared to others... and I think there is some merit to that, but taking down a strong villain with a team of weaker heroes feels so very satisfying, and to me, that makes it all worth it. 

 

My thought exactly. How awesome is it to defeat an interstellar warlord with guns and a broom?  If people are frustrated more often then not when playing a character, that's more damaging for a first time player than power level.