Bretin wrote:
hmmm i think the overall performance hardly depends on the tier/level cap we have been stuck at. at 36 the sm had a strong performance and was able to beat the predominant destru 6vs6 comp in 1/10+ fights. the video you linked shows this perfectly fine.
4 level below on the other hand he got steam rolled by an equal setup.
http://youtu.be/PZnUJnteJzc
some might think this could also be related to the lower quality of gameplay shown by those groups but honestly i think veterans like nydig and you do perfectly know what they are doing. thats why i suggest to wait for some quality t4 fights before we either rate him good or bad or even go into some balance discussions. 4 lvls are 4 lvls.
excellent points. I agree that any prior tier fights probably do not accurately prove the viability, or lack there of, of any class in this game. Further, introducing videos that don't specifically relate to 6v6 really have zero merit towards discussing their viability, especially in a thread about their 6v6 viability. Not to mention, introducing a class's viability based on videos where said class is four levels below the level cap that was in place at that particular point in time isn't a very accurate representation of the class.
Thus, I think we agree that making hasty generalizations with absurd hyperbole like a class has been "proven" to be the best or viable would therefore not be prudent, actually rather stupid or silly given such limited sampling or contrived conditions.
Still, with regards to the OP, I believe the SM thus far has been shown to be more versatile in the 6v6 domain than the Archmage. This doesn't mean that will continue, but the precedent thus far would lean that way.