Return of Reckoning

bloodi wrote:

tomato wrote:Learn2read.

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

tomato wrote:The point is, if you want to account all "wb synergies", as small they may be it will be so much more complicated (actually impossible to do it right) than just doing it for 6mans.

I think i got it pretty well.

tomato wrote:But I'm not expecting you to actually understand what I post. You proved already you're not capable of understanding.

I think that your problem is i see rather well the intent of your posts. I just dont really get your obsession with being catered to at all costs, if they dont design the game for you and just for you, somehow is a problem.

Allright, last try.

I prefer balancing around 6mans. As in my opinion they are affected by every significant synergy.

You believe in balance around 24 man, because in your opinion the from my point of view insignificant warband synergies are important.

So my math should show, that even if the warband synergies are important (which I don't think) it would be far to complex to account for them.

To conclude: It doesn't really matter who is right, one way or the other 6mans are the best balance scenario.

tomato wrote: You believe in balance around 24 man, because in your opinion the from my point of view insignificant warband synergies are important.

Well I believe this pretty much clears it up. If you aren't thoroughly convinced from the above statement you clearly need to Learn2read.

is it me or every thread about anything and everything whatsoever ends up with the two of you throwing rocks at each other....

tomato wrote:...

Alright, last try too for me.

I prefer that 6 man and 24 man, are balanced separately, as in my opinion, they are entire different beasts with different metas, options, skills and synergies.

You, somehow, missed the numerous times i repeated this and are telling me that i want to balance around 24 man only, because even if you like to repeat "learn2read" and "reading comprehesion" every 3 posts, you seem to not follow that thought much yourself.

So as the lasts posts show, you change from 6 mans being the end of every balance to warbands being to complicated too balance when shown that there is reasons to balance them separetely because for god knows what reason, a world where there is balance for both, is not feasible for you, so you rather see the devs catering to your preferred playstyle.

bloodi wrote:
a world where there is balance for both, is not feasible for you,

Pretty interesting, as I always had the opinion that good 6man balance will translate into 24 man balance.

what about witch hunter / witch elf ?

tomato wrote:Pretty interesting, as I always had the opinion that good 6man balance will translate into 24 man balance.

Well you are entitled to that opinion, is wrong but you are entitled to it.

That was the whole point of why they have to be balanced on their own.

(Opinion)
Those are for killing mass healers in one quick go and originally were the only classes that could by pass into keeps.

Take like 12 WH/WE coordinate into grps of 2 or 3 each kill 4 to 6 healers simultaneously. Assassin squads. Put a warband into a rez cycle. Capitalize on organization/coordination mistakes.

Also note: In a competitive environment of ORvR there can be no stragglers in moving warbands. Otherwise Assassin teams/roam groups would eat them.

I really super go into deep into this type of thinking on my sig.

Fun fact: There are like 35 million different 2:2:2 warband setups for one realm.

Edit: Nope, it's even more. My bad.