6 man meta

[tomato]

6 to 24 doesnt translate as well as you people like to think it does. Just like 1 to 6 doesnt.

Even you should realize how this statement makes absolutely zero sense.

6vs6 balance includes every group synergy/setup possible. (and therefor almost every warband synergy)

1vs1 balance includes no class synergy at all. (while 6vs6 does like seen before).

[bloodi]

Even you should realize how this statement makes absolutely zero sense.

Yeah, how do i dare suggest that in a game where the meta is already very defined on 6vs6 and leaves entire classes out of it then maybe 6vs6 and 24vs24 are different things that should be look at separetly

6vs6 balance includes every group synergy/setup possible. (and therefor almost every warband synergy)

No it does not, it you actually thought about it you can clearly see why.

1vs1 balance includes no class synergy at all. (while 6vs6 does like seen before).

Only the first part of this sentence is true and the later is something that you love to say but simply is not.

[roadkillrobin]

There's a couple problems with ballancng the game in a 6 man meta tbh.
The moast important one being that moast classes won't be representedl. There's always gonna be a dream team setup. And the dream team comp has pretty much looked the same since the game launched. The highest dps class, the healer with best survivabilloty and the sturdiest tank with moast support.
This leaves 0 room for support dps builds, hybrid tanks etz. And this is a problem imo.
When groups are expanded to 12,18 and 24 mans you can start adding support builds as you have a group of the core of 2- 2- 2 allready.
This i why i think the ballancing should be done with priority for 12-24man groups.

[Gachimuchi]

There's a couple problems with ballancng the game in a 6 man meta tbh.
The moast important one being that moast classes won't be representedl. There's always gonna be a dream team setup. And the dream team comp has pretty much looked the same since the game launched. The highest dps class, the healer with best survivabilloty and the sturdiest tank with moast support.
This leaves 0 room for support dps builds, hybrid tanks etz. And this is a problem imo.
When groups are expanded to 12,18 and 24 mans you can start adding support builds as you have a group of the core of 2- 2- 2 allready.
This i why i think the ballancing should be done with priority for 12-24man groups.

And in groups greater than six composition matters less and less as the number of players involved increase. All that matters is the number of useful AoE abilities you have.

[peterthepan3]

every class can perform well in a 6man group, EXCEPT magi/engineers, and the fact that DOK/WP overshadow other healers: magus/engi really need some changes/class overhaul (that will take time), all tanks can function in a 6v6, and in regards to healers perhaps DOKS/WPs should be toned down somewhat so that zealot/shaman combos are viable. once this is done, all classes will be able to shine in 6v6 - and this can later be translated to larger scale rvr.

it would make for an incredibly arduous task to set about balancing 12v12/24v24 in my honest opinion, and I echo the thoughts of the post above mine.

[bloodi]

Well Annaise said it much better than me in another thread, let me quote:

The game was mostly likely balanced around 12v12 (12v12 scens were the only pvp for much of the game's development), but it works at many other scales as well.

For thoe people who believe that the game should be balanced around 6v6, I'm guessing that you are advocating that all ranged dps should have their dps increased by 50%. Because that is what it is going to take to bring rdps up to standard with mdps in a 6v6 environment. Of course, it will make rdps massively overpowered in other contexts, but 6v6 is the standard, right?

Link to it: http://www.returnofreckoning.com/forum/ ... ed#p124717

So its an ardous task everywhere, you gotta modify a lot for 6 man and you gotta modify a lot for 24 man, there is no easy way here.

[tomato]

Even you should realize how this statement makes absolutely zero sense.

Yeah, how do i dare suggest that in a game where the meta is already very defined on 6vs6 and leaves entire classes out of it then maybe 6vs6 and 24vs24 are different things that should be look at separetly

6vs6 balance includes every group synergy/setup possible. (and therefor almost every warband synergy)

No it does not, it you actually thought about it you can clearly see why.

1vs1 balance includes no class synergy at all. (while 6vs6 does like seen before).

Only the first part of this sentence is true and the later is something that you love to say but simply is not.

Tell me more about cross group synergy in warbands then. Only stuff allowed which doesn't effect 6vs6.
Actually interested in this.

Pro tip: Stacking aoe from 8 bws and moral dumping aren't synergies even if you like to believe that.

[peterthepan3]

Well Annaise said it much better than me in another thread, let me quote:

The game was mostly likely balanced around 12v12 (12v12 scens were the only pvp for much of the game's development), but it works at many other scales as well.

For thoe people who believe that the game should be balanced around 6v6, I'm guessing that you are advocating that all ranged dps should have their dps increased by 50%. Because that is what it is going to take to bring rdps up to standard with mdps in a 6v6 environment. Of course, it will make rdps massively overpowered in other contexts, but 6v6 is the standard, right?

Link to it: http://www.returnofreckoning.com/forum/ ... ed#p124717

So its an ardous task everywhere, you gotta modify a lot for 6 man and you gotta modify a lot for 24 man, there is no easy way here.

One thing that will make a HUGE difference in ROR is the removal of trivial blows. Already we can see the potency of SW/BW combos in Caledor Woods. Melee do have an easier time, but that isn't to say ranged 6mans can't work (they can - enigma will probably be more than happy to show that)

I get where you're coming from, though - it's a long road ahead either way!

[footpatrol2]

The point I'm trying to make, is in this games original design the game was balanced around likely 12 or 24 man already (<----opinion). (Opinion---->) The playerbase never understood this at the time, me included.

It will take more work to get this game balanced at the 6 man level then it would if it was (opinion--->) to be balanced at the 12 or 24 man level.

(Opinion below)
I think if we looked at the patch notes we'd notice this game was more inline with what i've been trying to say for the last 3 weeks. I'm not saying it was perfect but it was more inline with higher than 6 man group compositions.

[bloodi]

...

Well you got a lot more room in a warband to adapt your groups, the thing about 6vs6 is a very "closed" system, it has to work as a unit by itself that does not need any external aid to function properly, that means it should kill and stay alive all by themselves.

That limits your options a lot.

A warband is a different beast, groups can now have roles, you can have one with a pair of healers and 4 tanks crossguarding whose sole role is debuff and be a pest around the enemy warband, you can have a group whose entire role is to flank the enemy, people purely focused on lolaoe, there is a lot more things to experiment and tweak around.

There is skills, hell, entire specs built around pressure that are designed around warband play, this is not something we came up with out of nowhere, the game really is about orvr as much as it is around 6vs6, there is room for everyone.

One thing that will make a HUGE difference in ROR is the removal of trivial blows.

I dont think it will as much as most people assume, the game was already bursty before the 80-100 gear, the game was already very melee train centric in 6vs6 way before trivial blows appeared.

In 6vs6, melee always ruled.