6 man meta

[footpatrol2]

@ tomato
(opinion)
I'm stating that the game was designed out the door for this. But the playerbase never got it (me included at the time) and asked mythic to change it to fit more 6v6 style play. Mythic prided itself on player feedback. I'm not saying they got everything 100% correct but a lot more correct then players thought (me included).

6 man's are super important because its the introduction to organized play. All I'm saying is the meta doesn't stop there.

Pure Guess ----> I bet this game was originally designed for much higher group compositions then 6 man's. I bet if we dig through the patch notes and start taking off bandaide's that mythic applied to keep sub's, this style of play would be more balanced then it currently is.

I'm saying mythic already did most of the work for us so we don't have too do millions of balancing issue's on the classes if we look at the original game design. Again not saying it was 100% correct. Pick and choose and prod at things. I suspect the sweet spot is closer to the original design.

[bloodi]

With all that said, i still think footpatrol2 is on drugs and i am still mad he doesnt want to share any of it.

There is no bandaids applied to make 6 mans relevant, Daoc roaming was already based around its groups, if anything, the idea of them basing the game around groups is much more feasible than it being warband based.

However, as i already linked i agree with Annaise view of the game being built mostly around scs, with multiple parties and the synergies between them.

Thats why i think there should be balance for 6 mans, they are the basic unit but what is ideal on 6vs6 simply doesnt scale and that 24 is the upper limit, the output a warband can do is something that should be look at, as well as the optimal way to construct them.

I also think that pointing out that warbands are very hard to balance is nothing more than a cop-out. Specially when just as in 6 man play, the things that excel at it are limited and it can be balanced around them.

[Defiance]

I don't see what balancing for 12 or 24 is going to achieve. Until party buffs affect more than 5 other people, balancing for more than 6 people is a wasteful endeavor. What's the point of viewing things in this way, that balance should be separated for 6 and 24? Does this mean that all the synergies available to a group of 6 suddenly change once they enter a WB? Whyfor? Will every change be positive? Or will there be negatives that might hinder the formation of WBs for the sake of the "set bonus" that comes with 6?

I've seen an argument about class representation, which is the only valid one I've come across in the thread. Gamers will min/max along the path of least resistance. If there are more than 6 options, we're taking the best 6. Trying to formulate comps around a gimmick (melee healer, for example) immediately puts the group at a disadvantage, even if the comp can succeed under x, y, and z conditions.

This is not to say that anything other than 2/2/2 with "the best 6" is immediately going to fail. I personally advocate for 3/2/1, even if the standard 2/2/2 might generally have a better time across the board. There is room to move within the meta, and if anyone followed LoL a few years back, you'd see it at every international tourney. NA had its meta, EU had its meta. NA being NA, thought it was the best and anything opposing the meta was for the lulz because NA had tried, and knew everything. EU just did their thing, regardless of what NA said, and when it came time to tournies, EU won most often because they weren't force herded into "zomg, teh metaaaaaaa". I wouldn't be surprised if this continued today.

I would love for a guild to do something different with this old game. Maybe 3/2/1 is better than 2/2/2 if you're in a race specific guild (obviously the race with some of the best of the 3 - Empire, I'm looking at you). Maybe there's another comp, 3/3, where 4/6 are spec'd for damage while relying on their class mechanics to make them beefier, or replenish bars while doing damage. Whatever the case, 2/2/2 is the mold. There is no getting around this.

Trying to balance for 12s, or 24s, especially as far as diverse build representation goes, should be handled at the level of each specific under performing build (Wrath/Torture, I'm looking at you, now...). To say, "the classes are mostly fine, just need to balance for ## instead" is a huge oversight. Many classes can rank their trees thus; awesome, okay, and **** that noise. Try it for your own class. I bet one of your trees is gimped, and the second could use some help, while the build that leans to playing the class in an orthodox method is probably fine (getting the most balance focus and better development ideas out of the three). I can simplify that even further; Awesome (what it was "meant to do"), Okay (the in between spec, see Sac/Grace as an example), and FTN (the opposite of what the class is "meant to do", see Wrath/Torture, or the melee tree for SW/SH).

Balancing for 12 or 24, is attacking the problem of weak builds from a bad angle. If it were combat, the problem would have higher ground while looking down at this thread bravely trying to solve it. Just my .02.

[bloodi]

Well you can take that argument the opposite way too, hence why i linked that post earlier.

If you balance the shitty specs like grenadier for 6 man, what stops them from destroying warbands? The point is that classes like engineer can have a 6vs6 spec, like rifleman for single target and a warband spec, like grenadier for aoe pressure.

That makes them viable in both, without making them overpowered in any of them. Why is that hard to see?

[tomato]

The things that excel are limited because the balance right now is bad.
The perfect warband setup atm is something like: 7sorc/bw + 1magus/engi for pull, chosen/sm/knight and wp/dok.

Not much which can beat that. Maybe a kiter wb, which would need so much more coordination.
And seeing people aren't even able to coordinate the former well...

If you want perfect internal balance, for 2:2:2 setups, you got 756 6mans and 432million 24mans. Not counting hybrid classes. And you still have to look at 6vs6 and 24vs24 for realm balance.

Edit: Yes the numbers are just for fun. No need to argue here.

[footpatrol2]

@ bloodi

Thanks for your momentary words of kindness. Its appreciated.

Please note: that BW/Sorc's will always dominate the meta in 6v6 since its seriously hindering a 6 man grp compositions to use HTL tactics vs them. We can scale/change the fundamentals of the game so that BW/Sorc's are more tamed vs 6v6 or leave it the same. There are natural counters in this game but it exists beyond the 6 man setting. Potentially 12 man.

Guys remember... I know nothing, pure opinion. I don't know if mythic balanced this game at the 12 man 18 man 24 man 30 man 36 man 48 man. It just really doesn't seem that balanced at the 6 man level at all though in my opinion.

BTW my drugs are the bestest!!!

[tomato]

BTW my drugs are the bestest!!!

I give you that.

[Gobtar]

Footsoldier: please read my wall of text.

I think there might be some confusion as to why the game is currently being looked at from a 6v6 or 12v12 perspective.

What is a Metagame?
The meta game comprises all the rules and knowledge about the game as interacted with by the players, this is not the actual game, but the game beyond the game.

For Warhammer online, we look to what the goals of the game are: At the moment you have two seperate modes on which the game can be played. SC and ORvR. What is considered winning is different for each player because some players want loot, Renown, or experience.

What is a Win:
First lets talk about what the game treats as a Win, In SCs it's the first to get to 500 or have more points then their opponent when time is reached. In ORvR; it is Flipping a zone.

A Scenario win or a Zone flip isn't always the ultimate objective of the players, as some players will prefer to just farm SCs rather then a definite win, or play the AAO game in a losing zone not caring if the keep is taken or not. This could be chalked up to the fact that both of these game modes don't have lasting or even noticible consequnces but that is besides the point. Quite often playing objectives in SCs is considered "cowardly" or annoying rather then "smart". For most people Renown is the number 1 objective, followed by gear prospects, lastly bragging rights. .

As someone who is fully geared and max RR, all I care about is what I consider winning, I have believe "winning" in warhammer is crushing my enemies, knowing they have been bested, and securing a 500 win for everyone else. Most people want to maximise the three priorities, so they will be happy to kill players as long as they can before needing to cap the objectives.

The Game vs the Game outside the game:
Now, the game does not require you to have a tank, or healer or even DPS. It doesn't require you to actually kill your opponents. All the game requires you to do is achieve a 500 win or kill a keep lord. The game also provides numerous tools to do this.

The idea of needing a tank and healer came about with the players realizing that these archetypes are needed to effectively win. DPS are needed to deal with the sheer durability of healers. All of these were necessary when players would start fighting over said objectives. Truly if there is no opposition SCs comps are irrelevant and on live one person could flip an empty zone.

The game pairs players up in parties in the case of SCs, however the game does not make this a necessity. Players didn't form the ideas of parties but the players decided that it was in their best interest to play in a party. (on live we would see solo partied players however because of incentives to do so)

In ORvR, players have even less guidance on how they should conduct their affairs to achieve this goal. The game pushes the player in a direction with suggestions, such as archetypes, and roles, but ultimately it is up to the player.
The idea of bomb groups, zerging and "6-mans" are ultimately constructs developed by the players. The idea of a 2:2:2 or needing a chosen/knight are all facets of the game that have been organically developed by the community. This is how the meta is developed, players ultimately want to achieve their personal objectives in the quickest and easiest way possible, yielding the least amount of effort.

Players have developed the concept of the 6 man and the game has evolved around it because of it is the modular building block that fulfills the players goal of winning as efficiently as possible. Not only this but it can be brought into every aspect of the game.

The key word in here is modular, the 6 man can be worked with other 6 mans for the 12 mans of SCs or 24 mans of Warbands. You will see that players will bring different set ups to a BFP then they might a Caledor woods.

Should the game be based around Warbands?
Well the game only operates on the warband level in ORvR. The game has many mechanics that focus Party play and internal synergies there-in. Balancing the game on a Warband level means adjusting your focus away from party play, and ignoring balance issues that might arise there. That is not to say it is not worth looking into though.

Due to the aforementioned modular nature of parties, it could be said (and has been in this thread) that balancing the game with 6 mans means that you could prove with mathematical induction that every additional 6 man received on both sides would also be balanced.

Prove your worth, change the meta!
It's important to note that should someone prove that commonly unused concepts can be viable, it might in fact change the meta. The meta will always incorporate what is most effective to achieve the players goals.

Warband on warband fights can be immensely brutal and can be long lasting slaughterfests, this usually happens when two groups of about equal skill and number meet each other. If there additional reasons for players to Warband up...you would see them do so more often.
A healthy meta is abstracting these concepts, Instead of 2:2:2 it's I need 1+ tanks and 1+ healers. Instead of needing a chosen needing any tank. Adding balance that makes it so there are pros and cons for each choice rather than one golden truth.

TL;DR The meta was not decreed, it was developed over time by the community, it is organic, and adaptable. It will change to find a more efficient equalibrium.

[Shadowgurke]

Crazy idea: What if we balance stuff in a case by case kind of fashion, rather than going full ballistic on which playstyle is more important to balance around?

The majority of all changes is going to affect 6v6 and 12v12 in the same way, the rest can still be debated on

[footpatrol2]

@Gobtar
Give me time to let what you wrote soak in so I can give you a response if a response is needed. Thank you though for your response I like that it is well thought out.

Sadly I have to start work. But I will definitely come back and really give this some serious thought.