Overarching balance changes

[roadkillrobin]

Not advocating for a ballance change for SL/CH, pointing out a illogical in their mechanic.

[TenTonHammer]

orders wernt shouted all the time but its irrelevant considering that twister made it so that they basically were at all times

[Bozzax]

While the opposition basicly havn't presented any kind of valid implication that the game actually are or have been ballanced for 6v6.

It is very simple...

Groups and content
The standard group of warhammer was 6 players and therfore the game was balanced for being 6. More or less all content released was made in multiples of 6. Examples Wb (4x6), pve 6, SCs 6v6, 12v12, etc the list goes on and on. (I personally think they put resources into balancing 1v1 even though it was never outspooken and diffrent archetypes/hybrids made it near impossible).

All content in this game was made for one or mutiple groups of 6

Ability design
There are friendly/enemy target, ally, group or aoe affecting abilities/morales/passives. If we for obvious reason exclude those that affect area or single target we more or less are left with stuff that affect group (6).

Also note that there are exactly zero abilities/morales/passives that affect 12 or 24. Wbs are simply xp sharing and a chat nohing more.

In your mind there might be proof for racial wbs or evidence of the game never being balanced for 6 players in a group but content both pve or rvr suggest the opposite.

[roadkillrobin]

While the opposition basicly havn't presented any kind of valid implication that the game actually are or have been ballanced for 6v6.

It is very simple...

Groups and content
The standard group of warhammer was 6 players and therfore the game was balanced for being 6. More or less all content released was made in multiples of 6. Examples Wb (4x6), pve 6, SCs 6v6, 12v12, etc the list goes on and on. (I personally think they put resources into balancing 1v1 even though it was never outspooken and diffrent archetypes/hybrids made it near impossible).

All content in this game was made for one or mutiple groups of 6

Ability design
There are friendly/enemy target, ally, group or aoe affecting abilities/morales/passives. If we for obvious reason exclude those that affect area or single target we more or less are left with stuff that affect group (6).

Also note that there are exactly zero abilities/morales/passives that affect 12 or 24. Wbs are simply xp sharing and a chat nohing more.

In your mind there might be proof for racial wbs or evidence of the game never being balanced for 6 players in a group but content both pve or rvr suggest the opposite.

Groups :
I'll explain this for thee 3d time. As you add more people to a fight the more damage is added. Hwoever group buffs, groupheals and defensive stats doesn't scale depending on how manu peeople you fight. That means that there has to be a anchor were healers and buffs still mather. If the game was ballanced for 6v6 that would mean that either dmg output would have to be nerfed in 12v12 or heals nerfed to cater to 6v6. There's a reason why 2/3 of classes arn't optimal for 6v6. The game just isn't ballanced for that, and doing it would create massive ballance gaps elsewere. The reason for the 6man group is very much based on healing output vs dmg innput.

Conetent:
There hasn't been any single permanent 6v6 content in this game at all until the very end of the game. As to were they didnt release any ballance patches at all, why would they ballance the game for 6v6 when there's no content for it???? The Ironclad was part of Live Eevent called Scurvey Dogs, The Eternal Citadel was part of a Live Event called Foray of Fate and Gates of Ekerund was modified to 6v6 only for lvl 18-24 to help SC pop in t2 and t3.
If you wanna read the deffinition of Live Event you can follow this link:
http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/Live_Event

Abillity Design:
I've explained about the Defensive Stats, Groupheals and Groupbuffs allready. Now imagine if 2 6man actually was 1 12man instead. You group would have somewere between 3-5 healers. Everyone would have every buffs possible. But dps output would actually be around the same as 2 6mans. You wouldn't be able to kill anything. And AoE abillties are actually 9 targets unless stated otherwisee not 6. This wasn't always the case tho, there was a time in this game were AoE had no target hit cap.

For the game to be ballanced they kinda need to use this formula en i explain why after.

2 Ballanced 6man groups should have about the same single target dps output as 1 ballanced warband does with AoE abillties to a single target. With basicly any kinda ballanced group setupof 2-2-2. Anything else would make healers either overpowered or underpowered.

If we use the 6man group as a anchor for ballance instead of 12 we see how underpowered heals become once you scale up the battle to a normal sized scenario.

In my mind there's proof??? You know i can just throw this back and say: The 6v6 community wants 6v6 content and 6v6 ballance so badly they completly ignoring any fact or logic that points towards that the game isn't and were never ballanced for it. I'm not making this **** up. I'm using logic and historical facts.

[grumcajs]

I do not think the game was mentioned to be balanced mainly with 6v6 as their priority number 1.

Though I do agree 6 man is still a grp and thus it should be taken in consideration when talking about balance. It could be in RoR as their priority number 1 BUT to take in consideration balance in larger scale too.

It is true that for example rdps usually starts to shine in larger scale (2 grps) but that isnt the excuse they should be performing worse in 6v6 situations.

I agree balancing the game from 6man pov isnt good idea UNLESS you would also be able to achieve balance in large scale (not only pugs to avoid that premade vs pug argument again ) at the same time. Then it would be awesome

[Sigimund]

I think large scale is less sensitive to balance between classes than small scale. Wrong type of healer? Just throw more bodies at the problem.

[peterthepan3]

Bozzax pretty much summed it up perfectly for me. Balancing around large scale would just kill smallscale and turn this game into the dust (whereas the inverse would not be true - regardless of 'more damage the more people are involved' as you counter that in large scale by having several groups within your WB to cycle morales/buffs and inflict your own hurt against the enemy).

I believe that - all bar a few (magus/engi/AM/sh) - most classes are already balanced around 6v6 and there doesn't seem to be a problem in large scale when it comes to the issues you seem to think exist/would exist...so what's up with that?

[Tesq]

While the opposition basicly havn't presented any kind of valid implication that the game actually are or have been ballanced for 6v6.

It is very simple...

Groups and content
The standard group of warhammer was 6 players and therfore the game was balanced for being 6. More or less all content released was made in multiples of 6. Examples Wb (4x6), pve 6, SCs 6v6, 12v12, etc the list goes on and on. (I personally think they put resources into balancing 1v1 even though it was never outspooken and diffrent archetypes/hybrids made it near impossible).

All content in this game was made for one or mutiple groups of 6

Ability design
There are friendly/enemy target, ally, group or aoe affecting abilities/morales/passives. If we for obvious reason exclude those that affect area or single target we more or less are left with stuff that affect group (6).

Also note that there are exactly zero abilities/morales/passives that affect 12 or 24. Wbs are simply xp sharing and a chat nohing more.

In your mind there might be proof for racial wbs or evidence of the game never being balanced for 6 players in a group but content both pve or rvr suggest the opposite.

that's incorrect boxx kobs/chosen auras were originally deisgned to work out of wb, Also aoe hit 9x ppl, before it wasnt even limited ..... hardly a sign of how the game was meant but more a sign of self balance to hit some stuff that happen to be imba during war history, 6 ppl x party it's a limitation for buff/debuff and in no way meant to be the base of the game.
Best itiems was meant for rvr and rvr is based upon warbands cuz city istance where designed for multiple warbands.
Pve such as lotd was added later on.
Warbands where based on guilds which is the main problem currently there are not a lot of big guild/alliance that can organize much.
If the end game was designed for multiple warbands then the game revolve around warbands, also there are a lot of article that point it out clearly.

[roadkillrobin]

I just debunked every single argument he had. How can that still make sence to you?

Ive never proposed ballance to be made from large scale It basicly has to be done from a 12v12 and 24 man warband perspective. Else they need to start to change group sizes.

[Tesq]

Bozzax pretty much summed it up perfectly for me. Balancing around large scale would just kill smallscale and turn this game into the dust (whereas the inverse would not be true - regardless of 'more damage the more people are involved' as you counter that in large scale by having several groups within your WB to cycle morales/buffs and inflict your own hurt against the enemy).

I believe that - all bar a few (magus/engi/AM/sh) - most classes are already balanced around 6v6 and there doesn't seem to be a problem in large scale when it comes to the issues you seem to think exist/would exist...so what's up with that?

that's hardly true as balance 6vs6 will translate in balnce wb vs wb

Small skirmish is revolved around single target, it should be balanced around that, balance st classes rotation of magus for exemple would mean nothing for wb vs wb.
Same would be balance bw/sorc aoe damages, this would not make em even more badder vs melee train.

then if someone gona tell me some premades going around with 2x slayer spam id well that's another point in nerf slayer aoe as much as mara need some tome down.