Some needed 6v6 changes

[roadkillrobin]

Roadkill you are basically saying that if the French had found out Germany was going to apply blitzkrieg, they should still adhere to Maginot/trench warfare strategies since it adds to the challenge and was their chosen "playstyle" 1 second prior to them discovering the intended German plan? Despite it putting them in a severe disadvantage? There is nothing competitive about that.

Thats War. Not a Game.

[Rebuke]

Roadkill you are basically saying that if the French had found out Germany was going to apply blitzkrieg, they should still adhere to Maginot/trench warfare strategies since it adds to the challenge and was their chosen "playstyle" 1 second prior to them discovering the intended German plan? Despite it putting them in a severe disadvantage? There is nothing competitive about that.

Thats War. Not a Game.

I dont see the difference in approaching this specific matter to be honest. You seem to use a false definition of what is to be regarded competitive gameplay.

[roadkillrobin]

Coz war don't follow rules of a game, It follows only the limitation of your economy.

For example your statement is implaying that it's ok to use exploits or bugs to win coz it gives you an advantage. And it would be stupid not to use em aslong as you can. This is how war works. Not games.

[Nekkma]

While I mostly play solo or duo and not really care about 6vs6 I am not sold on the idea to respecc in a scenario.

Why, you ask? Well, 6vs6 often occur as an argument in balance discussions because they people doing it tend to be skilled, knowleadgable, run good group compositions, active and vocal on forums. An argument for balance that sometimes comes up goes something like this "look at the stream from fight X vs Y, there is plenty of counterplay".

Balance from this perspective can be pretty narrow if everone is able to run an optimal specc. If one team for instance only have mdps the other team obvisouly drop their 20 points in dodge/disrupt (if specced) for something else instead. Conversly, if your opponent runs rdps you probably pick up dodge/disrupt. This would alienate 6vs6 balance from the other parts of the game where you usually run with the best allround specc as you never know what you will face.

If this was implemented I think balance arguments based on that scenario should be approached with caution.

[Danielle]

First of all I am glad CW exists and that the devs put it in the game as 6v6 scenario for the 6v6 community. They are very supportive with GMs helping the 6v6 events amongst other things. However the CW scenario could use some improvements.

The guard range is restricted to the very edges of the cliffs as Torque pointed out in an earlier thread. However, people kite exactly to those spots, some will even punt people to them or punt people to the cliff with the guards. My personal preference would be if there were no guards at all and there was a clickable barrier to port through (think how EC works now or how Grovod Caverns worked on live). Yes it's the players decisions to go punt/kite to those spots, but especially at higher levels people like to game stuff and they will just be very very highly tempted to do these things when the opportunities are presented to them.

Because of the relatively short length of CW if the point is capped, the top 6 man premades will usually play it out as a death match with respawns not capping the point (and because that's the traditional WAR 6 man format anyway). That's where the guards become really restrictive. It also causes issues with capitalizing on single kills because a party that starts the fight at their spawn will be likely able to wipe out the enemy before they run to their respawn whereas the party fighting at the enemy spawn will likely kill one person and they're done. This makes fighting in dm style in the scenario highly awkward as both sides just look at each other at the middle and throw potatoes hoping the enemy will come towards them and engage.

Now I have no problem with the current scenario design around the point if people want to play it that way. But I would argue the major portion of caledor woods is played as a dm anyway, because it's largely the 6 mans that queue for it. Putting a clickable barrier without guards wouldn't cause rampant spawncamping in non-premade scenarios, but it would greatly improve those that are.

The last thing that could be improved is to completely separate party & solo queues for Caledor Woods just like GoE is now and KE was last week. If a premade leaves a pop I really don't want to fight 6 soloers and they really don't want to fight any premade. The one capture point mechanic makes it a super-painful scenario to fight vs. a premade anyway and the premades who queue for it aren't interested in fighting PuGs. Finally I loved the few times I got a PuG 6v6 in CW, but with how it works now people are scared to queue for it with high potential of getting a premade against themselves, because somebody left a pop. It would also help the queuing system, when it can't fill a 12v12 scenario, and could help to prevent those from being imbalanced.

[peterthepan3]

While I mostly play solo or duo and not really care about 6vs6 I am not sold on the idea to respecc in a scenario.

Why, you ask? Well, 6vs6 often occur as an argument in balance discussions because they people doing it tend to be skilled, knowleadgable, run good group compositions, active and vocal on forums. An argument for balance that sometimes comes up goes something like this "look at the stream from fight X vs Y, there is plenty of counterplay".

Balance from this perspective can be pretty narrow if everone is able to run an optimal specc. If one team for instance only have mdps the other team obvisouly drop their 20 points in dodge/disrupt (if specced) for something else instead. Conversly, if your opponent runs rdps you probably pick up dodge/disrupt. This would alienate 6vs6 balance from the other parts of the game where you usually run with the best allround specc as you never know what you will face.

If this was implemented I think balance arguments based on that scenario should be approached with caution.

I honestly can't fathom how balance from the perspective of two groups speccd accordingly,i.e. to give best shot of winning vs the other, can be deemed 'narrow'. If anything it would allow us to gauge viability of x, or if z is under performing etc. As both are optimally specd.

[Nekkma]

I honestly can't fathom how balance from the perspective of two groups speccd accordingly,i.e. to give best shot of winning vs the other, can be deemed 'narrow'. If anything it would allow us to gauge viability of x, or if z is under performing etc. As both are optimally specd.

Narrow in the sense that if one class has a very good counter against another class but that counter requires a specc that is never used in regular scenarios or rvr. Narrow in the sense that if the meta is to specc full RD against kitegroups this should not be an argument for buffing CC. Btw, both are just fictional examples.

I am somewhat ok with respeccing mastery points but sceptic about renown. Classbalance should not depend on renownspecc.

Edit: More accuratly I am fine with both as long as such a balance argument based on this 6vs6 scenario is, as I wrote in my first post, approached with caution (not ignored).

[UmmOK]

I was going to spend a lot of time writing a clear concise post, with examples, of how RoR is transitioning away from AoR Group play and into a casual, solo-play game, but why waste my time.

If you want to 6v6, you're going to have to do it without the "backing" or "help" from the dev team and most of the other players on the server. There will be no concessions forthcoming. No changes.

The counter argument offered by the very first Dev in this thread says it all. They consider the solo players at a disadvantage and the 6v players as whiny hypocrites, and treat each accordingly.

The Devs have enough on their plate catering to the solo-players, trying to gain interest in the project and swell the numbers without also having to worry about a playstyle they consider dead or abusive.

I will continue to run as formidable a premade as I can scrape together night after night, but I foresee a time when group que is gone, and with it, the need for guilds/clans, coordination beyond PuG Warbands, etc. It's the only way RoR can ensure it's survival. It's understandable that a small segment of the community will wither and die in order to make room for the more 1v1 solo play.

I just wish they would own it, and quit saying they don't care about 1v1 balance when it's clear every ranged class in game is balance for 1v1 in terms of CC and Kiting.

[peterthepan3]

While I echo a lot of what you said, I think it's unfair to categorise all of the developers/GMs/team members as such: Azarael has gone to great lengths trying to balance things around 6man scale; Ryan himself made a poll about the EC 6v6 scenario tailored towards the 6v6 community; Druin/Poisonous was kind enough to help out with yesterday's 6v6 event by moderating and letting people know where it was; Penril plays in a 6-man and is up for 6v6, etc.

Though I do agree that there does seem to be a sort of disdain/general dislike towards the scene due to this purported reason of 'elitism'/pug hate, which everyone would do well to dispose of.

[Azarael]

I was going to spend a lot of time writing a clear concise post, with examples, of how RoR is transitioning away from AoR Group play and into a casual, solo-play game, but why waste my time.

If you want to 6v6, you're going to have to do it without the "backing" or "help" from the dev team and most of the other players on the server. There will be no concessions forthcoming. No changes.

The counter argument offered by the very first Dev in this thread says it all. They consider the solo players at a disadvantage and the 6v players as whiny hypocrites, and treat each accordingly.

The Devs have enough on their plate catering to the solo-players, trying to gain interest in the project and swell the numbers without also having to worry about a playstyle they consider dead or abusive.

I will continue to run as formidable a premade as I can scrape together night after night, but I foresee a time when group que is gone, and with it, the need for guilds/clans, coordination beyond PuG Warbands, etc. It's the only way RoR can ensure it's survival. It's understandable that a small segment of the community will wither and die in order to make room for the more 1v1 solo play.

I just wish they would own it, and quit saying they don't care about 1v1 balance when it's clear every ranged class in game is balance for 1v1 in terms of CC and Kiting.

1) Torquemadra's opinion is his own, as are the opinions of every staff member who posts. None of us, while posting, represent Return of Reckoning's official viewpoint unless we say we do. I really hate to be this direct about it, but if you're looking for the person by whose opinions this project should be judged, it's more likely than not to be me.

2) As already stated multiple times - we're not balancing the game around solo or PUG or lower tiers. We're balancing around 6v6, 12v12 and RvR. If I had a pound for every time I've had to chastise someone both internally and externally for bringing up 1on1, I'd have a nice little fund. So, I do find it very unfair that you would categorize this project as prioritizing solo players.

For the project to survive, it must cater to solo players to an acceptable degree, that is true. So far, this has taken the form of splitting the queue on one scenario, because everyone (both PUG and premade) is entitled to have fun when they play and be matched against opposition of similar skill and composition to themselves. We also locked CW and EC to 6v6 with 6 man groups and made CW permanently available at the request of the 6v6 players.

If the 6v6 scene should ever fall, it sure as hell would not be because our actions killed it. Rather, like all competitive communities that fail, it would be because it wasn't strong enough to survive by itself. You should not depend upon our intervention and support to exist.