Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

[Ramasee]

But thats how human psychology function. No one would work if they weren't punished for not doing so. No one would go to the gym if they could just maintain their physique by doing nothing. The rewards in life comes from putting in more effort relitive to their enviromental peers by doing stuff that is allready essential to them even exist in the first place.

A lot of people work simply because they would be bored to death without a job.
A lot of people actually love going to the gym.

And even if we pretended for a second your examples weren't terrible, fact remains this is a video game and if you punish me for not playing the way you want me to play, i will just play something else

And thats what happen even with not punishing for giving up. They log off or switch realm even tho there are more rewards to gain relativly.

Soccer is also just a game. If you leave walk over enough times in any you eventually get thrown out of the leuge.

You need to understand that there are tons of people with different value systems than you, me, penril, ptp3, the devs, etc etc.

I personally enjoy most content with I am playing with people I know. Winning/losing doesnt matter as much to me. Rewards matter some. To other people rewards are the end all. I like good fights, some people want easy mode.

Most people log in to video games for whatever it is that brings them enjoyment. FORCING them to do something that they don't enjoy will not keep them playing your game for long at all. Rewarding them with something that helps them in the content they do ENJOY can sometimes get them to do it, chapter 22 PQs come to mind for hardcore pvpers.

=====
You could assign a scenario or small list of them each week that will generate resources based on the score of the match for both realms. This scenario list would only be queue-able by 40/40+. This would be to keep lesser geared players from feeding into the enemy's resources (at least in scenarios). Probably would want most scenarios to be adjusted to be less rewarding of kills and more rewarding of objectives in the scenario. Increase the benefits for owning BFOs for keep offense/defense. Lower the threshold for getting to rank 5 keep. Keep BFOs generating rp/inf/xp all the way to rank 5. Have the zone cap at keep rank 5, or upon keep take.

This would allow for 6mans to help the realm capturing BFOs (boring) or through scenarios that have better geared players in them. Blobbing the keep can still happen, but full blob allows just a handful of enemy players to make the keep lord impossible by taking BFOs. You can put a very small time lock on BFOs your realm captures if your inner keep wall is down (like 2 min). Deadlocked zones could be pushed over by better BFO control in conjunction with scenario wins (and near losses).

[ragafury]

[charlysixb]

xD

[Darosh]

<insert strawman, muh feels, yadayada>

Can't we just turn this game into another mindless themepark that caters to players that want to smash buttons at random and still win?
It sure will help with player retention and revenue... oh, wait.

The 'if I don't get my way, I'll go play something else' goes both ways ~ aside from that, depending on that very 'way' and its implications... it might be a case of good riddance afterall.

I personally don't see WAR holding my interest much longer, given that at this point it's headless chicken simulator, both in terms of gameplay and development.
Making up your mind and planing ahead doesn't hurt, contrary to popular opinion...

[Reesh]

I had same reaction from just one page of it. One was too much.

[roadkillrobin]

Ill just sum all my toughts to this. I you want to raise the competative edge you need to put something at steak aswell.

[Martok]

For reference:

No. IMO balance should only consider warband scale.

Then:

If you balance 6 man, some classes are going to either be useless at that scale (which is bad balancing), or incredibly OP in larger scale due to AOE abilities. To me 6v6 is the same as dueling, an irrelevant side game that is only supported by a small portion of the community.

Yet when you look at the actual class changes implemented over the last year or so many of them have, either by default or design, served to enhance the viability of both solo and six-man play for a number of Destruction classes. Seriously, someone explain the logic,in context of your comment above that "balance should only consider warband scale," why a Magus needs a disarm? Or a Squig Herder needs a disarm? Or why a Sorc needs a disarm? In Warband play all of these classes are intended for ranged combat, that is their meta. Yet someone felt they all needed a personal disarm, a One v. One and Six-man meta.

Again, in context of warband scale combat disarms for a ranged class are equal in utility as tossing an axe, yet over time almost every Destruction class has been given one. Although I can understand the concept in regard to Marauders, even that class did not always have a disarm in RoR, as I clearly recall Norkalli making a big deal out of the fact Marauders had been granted one, as that occurred when cross-realm chat was still enabled.

I know no-one is going to answer my question concerning the logic of why a Magus needs a disarm, therefore I will simply go ahead and state in context of applying logic alone it would make far more sense for a melee class, such as a Sword-master or a Knight of the Blazing Sun or a Chosen, you know, people who actually wield a close-combat weapon and are suppose to know how to use it, to have a disarm than a ranged class capable of casting the majority of their abilities on the move. Yet what has occurred is a melee class which already has an actual, dedicated and designed AOE knock-back ability gets the option to use a tactic related AOE knock-back ability and the ranged classes all get disarms. In addition, in the case of the Magus, not only a disarm but a knock-back, a knock-down, a complete disable, and squig-speed in running away.

Over time it has been stated quite often by various members of the staff they are not concerned with the One v. One aspect of this game. Yet, and I have the video to support this, when you see a sizable number of Magus and Squig Herder players almost exclusively running around solo logic alone dictates questioning that stated philosophy. In addition rendering Squig Herder's the new Destruction tank class has, again by default or design, bolstered Destruction Six-man play.

The main game is warband scale, and is what should be balanced around.

I already know what response I will get for my comments, but there are more things in RoR heaven and earth, Vayra, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[roadkillrobin]

Spoiler:

A lot of people work simply because they would be bored to death without a job.
A lot of people actually love going to the gym.

And even if we pretended for a second your examples weren't terrible, fact remains this is a video game and if you punish me for not playing the way you want me to play, i will just play something else

And thats what happen even with not punishing for giving up. They log off or switch realm even tho there are more rewards to gain relativly.

Soccer is also just a game. If you leave walk over enough times in any you eventually get thrown out of the leuge.

You need to understand that there are tons of people with different value systems than you, me, penril, ptp3, the devs, etc etc.

I personally enjoy most content with I am playing with people I know. Winning/losing doesnt matter as much to me. Rewards matter some. To other people rewards are the end all. I like good fights, some people want easy mode.

Most people log in to video games for whatever it is that brings them enjoyment. FORCING them to do something that they don't enjoy will not keep them playing your game for long at all. Rewarding them with something that helps them in the content they do ENJOY can sometimes get them to do it, chapter 22 PQs come to mind for hardcore pvpers.

=====
You could assign a scenario or small list of them each week that will generate resources based on the score of the match for both realms. This scenario list would only be queue-able by 40/40+. This would be to keep lesser geared players from feeding into the enemy's resources (at least in scenarios). Probably would want most scenarios to be adjusted to be less rewarding of kills and more rewarding of objectives in the scenario. Increase the benefits for owning BFOs for keep offense/defense. Lower the threshold for getting to rank 5 keep. Keep BFOs generating rp/inf/xp all the way to rank 5. Have the zone cap at keep rank 5, or upon keep take.

This would allow for 6mans to help the realm capturing BFOs (boring) or through scenarios that have better geared players in them. Blobbing the keep can still happen, but full blob allows just a handful of enemy players to make the keep lord impossible by taking BFOs. You can put a very small time lock on BFOs your realm captures if your inner keep wall is down (like 2 min). Deadlocked zones could be pushed over by better BFO control in conjunction with scenario wins (and near losses).

I didn't sugest a system were I forced someone to do some aspect of the game they don't like either. I sugested a system were if you didn't do anything at all or just swapped realm back and fourth instead of staying loyal, then on a large scale (not in large scale) over time your entire realm would get consequences from it.
Another thing you could do is simply having gear with timer to expire even when logged out. All these things are stuff that actually used to be in the game to some extent.

[Vayra]

Spoiler:

For reference:

No. IMO balance should only consider warband scale.

Then:

If you balance 6 man, some classes are going to either be useless at that scale (which is bad balancing), or incredibly OP in larger scale due to AOE abilities. To me 6v6 is the same as dueling, an irrelevant side game that is only supported by a small portion of the community.

Yet when you look at the actual class changes implemented over the last year or so many of them have, either by default or design, served to enhance the viability of both solo and six-man play for a number of Destruction classes. Seriously, someone explain the logic,in context of your comment above that "balance should only consider warband scale," why a Magus needs a disarm? Or a Squig Herder needs a disarm? Or why a Sorc needs a disarm? In Warband play all of these classes are intended for ranged combat, that is their meta. Yet someone felt they all needed a personal disarm, a One v. One and Six-man meta.

Again, in context of warband scale combat disarms for a ranged class are equal in utility as tossing an axe, yet over time almost every Destruction class has been given one. Although I can understand the concept in regard to Marauders, even that class did not always have a disarm in RoR, as I clearly recall Norkalli making a big deal out of the fact Marauders had been granted one, as that occurred when cross-realm chat was still enabled.

I know no-one is going to answer my question concerning the logic of why a Magus needs a disarm, therefore I will simply go ahead and state in context of applying logic alone it would make far more sense for a melee class, such as a Sword-master or a Knight of the Blazing Sun or a Chosen, you know, people who actually wield a close-combat weapon and are suppose to know how to use it, to have a disarm than a ranged class capable of casting the majority of their abilities on the move. Yet what has occurred is a melee class which already has an actual, dedicated and designed AOE knock-back ability gets the option to use a tactic related AOE knock-back ability and the ranged classes all get disarms. In addition, in the case of the Magus, not only a disarm but a knock-back, a knock-down, a complete disable, and squig-speed in running away.

Over time it has been stated quite often by various members of the staff they are not concerned with the One v. One aspect of this game. Yet, and I have the video to support this, when you see a sizable number of Magus and Squig Herder players almost exclusively running around solo logic alone dictates questioning that stated philosophy. In addition rendering Squig Herder's the new Destruction tank class has, again by default or design, bolstered Destruction Six-man play.

The main game is warband scale, and is what should be balanced around.

I already know what response I will get for my comments, but there are more things in RoR heaven and earth, Vayra, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

A disarm is there to protect against the biggest threat to casters: melee dps. It's certainly useful in 1v1 and 6v6 too. Hell, it could even have had a purpose in PvE (no bosses requires a disarm that I remember but it remains an option for encounter design), which is a very overlooked part of the game here. Also, if you think classes having single target CC is indicative of 1v1 or 6 man design, I really don't know what to tell you.

And personally, I really don't care if a change buffs either faction in 1v1 or 6v6, as those scales don't interest me at all. The lack of consideration for 1v1 is not only a decision of this server, it was the stated design philosophy of Mythic as well. There's a good reason why duelling was never officially supported (ie being able to duel own faction players), and that is in part because it would lead to inevitable calls for balancing based on 1v1 strengths and weaknesses. Which in no way carries over to even 6v6, and definitely not higher scales.

[Feru]

For me the best times in ror were when the aza joined the team of devs in t1 and fixed the abilities of the toons, it gave the idea that we would have WAR again.

With the launch of t2 began the problems, x-realm, x-chat, x-faction gold trade and the staff show no worries, was not what i expected, anyway ... but my major concern was the ideas of "let's change it, let's try that, if it does not work we revert it" for the FUN. This creativity does not inspire confidence.

The following is what the ppl knows, comes a dev with ideas and does your thing, enter a gm that touches the code and does what feels good.

In my humble opinion, if someone thinks they can do better, first they should be able to do the same