Overarching balance changes

[roadkillrobin]

Ive allready explained that man. They were all special events. Neither was up for more then a couple weeks.

Again: Source please. Specifically from one of the original WAR devs, clearly stating "this game is not meant to be balanced around a 6-man, and it's ok that some classes will underperform in that setup".

They weren't special events. Some of them were permanent after 1.4.5.

http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/Game_Update_1.4.5.

Spoiler:

ScenariosEdit
The line-up of scenarios that are permanently available has changed. The new list is as follows:

Tier 1

Nordenwatch
Battle for Praag
Gates of Ekrund (6v6)
Tier 2

Nordenwatch
Mourkain Temple
Gates of Ekrund (6v6)
Tier 3

Nordenwatch
Mourkain Temple
Gates of Ekrund (6v6)
Reikland Factory
Tier 4

Nordenwatch
Mourkain Temple
Gates of Ekrund (6v6)
Reikland Factory
Caledor Woods (6v6)
Grovod Caverns (MP)

That's TWO permanent 6v6 SCs we had at some point in T4. So back to my question: why roll a class that is good at YvY* but sucks at XvX*, when I could just roll a class that is good at both?

*1v1 doesn't count.

1.4.5 patch lol seriusly,
Non of the orginal design team was left at this stage of the game it's also known as the time were the game was the least ballanced due to overperforming gear. And you want to use that Dev team as an example?

You can read the patch notes from that site to get moast of the information
http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/Patch

Here's an outtake from 2007 from a interview with one of the Devs.

MMOSITE.COM: RvR system is one of the most important reasons why WAR is greeted by the players. However, players now have different views on the RvR system. What is your understanding about RvR and what are the differences between PvP and RvR in WAR?

Richard: PvP is all about the player and personal gain. RvR is about being part of a larger group and fighting epic battles for a cause. In WAR, it s about leading your army to the doors of your opponent s capital city, kicking them down and then burning and pillaging the whole place.

MOSITE.COM: What do you think of the instanced RvR in WAR? You know it is not only a surprise to many old DAoC gamers, but also a surprise to the current WoW gamers.

Richard: I think the instanced RvR in WAR will work out great. We have a lot of features in place, such as NPC Dogs of War, to prevent the problems experienced by players in other games that have instanced PvP. The instanced Scenarios aren t the only type of RvR in the game; there is open-field RvR with many battlefield objectives to fight over. People familiar with DAoC should feel at home in our RvR system, and hopefully people who have experienced instanced PvP in other games will enjoy ours much more.

[Jaycub]

^Maybe is why we are so focused on 6v6 now, RvR is totally lacking purpose without it's proper endgame systems.

That being said, it is also up to the team here to craft a campaign experience that is going to feel like an "epic battles for a cause" instead of the retarded **** on live were cities where happening like 5 times a day. Otherwise we are just going to go right back to where we are now.

[roadkillrobin]

^Maybe is why we are so focused on 6v6 now, RvR is totally lacking purpose without it's proper endgame systems.

That being said, it is also up to the team here to craft a campaign experience that is going to feel like an "epic battles for a cause" instead of the retarded **** on live were cities where happening like 5 times a day. Otherwise we are just going to go right back to where we are now.

5 times a day was something that happens post 1.4.0 before that it was maybe once week.

[peterthepan3]

roadkill all those quotes say is that 'there are more forms of pvp than scenarios' - which noone disputed - and 'rvr is all about big battles, and in war we do this by <blabla>' ... which doesn't add much.

honestly man you're a cool guy but i don't see why you're so strongly opposed to balancing classes around 6v6 (a lot of people on the forums who are active in these discussions and offer suggestions etc like this form of pvp, or even 6vx/scenario) as well as ensuring all classes can perform well in WB v WB/rvr. that would be ideal, no?

[Zealote]

1v1? Agreed.

6v6? Source please. Specially since Mythic itself (with approval from EA/GW) implemented Ironclad, Eternal Citadel (the most played SC whenever it was in the rotation; all the other SCs stopped popping), and Caledor Woods/GoE 6v6.

They did it. Not the current RoR devs. So stop with the "this game was never meant to be balanced around a 6-man" bs.

Which doesn't imply that 6v6 was the group-size they intended to balance around - the point in question. It could merely have been to satisfy community desire, or some other reason.

On a related note, that the max. party size is 6 also doesn't unequivocally mean that 6v6 was the gameplay around which the original devs intended to balance. You could say exactly the same thing about another group size - warbands. I.e., "Warbands exist, and indeed are the main force in the entire campaign, therefore 24v24 is the correct group-size to balance around." (Remarks about it being impossible to balance around that number are irrelevant to the point being made).
..........
I highly doubt it could ever be so well-balanced that, no matter what group size you choose (6v6, 12v12, 18v18, 24v24, or whatever set of XvX is decided upon), any class of a given archetype could perform equally well at the most competitive level. 6v6 doesn't allow it for one thing, since by definition you're excluding one of each archetype, and so there will always be one group which has an advantage over most, or all, other groups, given equal skill/exp. Balancing classes would shake up the current fotm groups, but it'd eventually reach some other fixed state. The only real variation comes from having a diff group setup for melee/ranged/bombing/other, but again, within each of those, you'll still end up with one 'perfect' group.

This issue of what number to balance around comes up over and over again; maybe it needs its own strictly moderated thread in future to try and come to some consensus once and for all. I imagine the balance forums will be a failed endeavour if people don't even agree on what "balanced" means (because a class can be fine at one level, and crap at another).

Edit: Bit late with that, ah well.

[Jaycub]

^Maybe is why we are so focused on 6v6 now, RvR is totally lacking purpose without it's proper endgame systems.

That being said, it is also up to the team here to craft a campaign experience that is going to feel like an "epic battles for a cause" instead of the retarded **** on live were cities where happening like 5 times a day. Otherwise we are just going to go right back to where we are now.

5 times a day was something that happens post 1.4.0 before that it was maybe once week.

It's crucial that cities aren't turned into cheap whores on this server. It kills what little shreds of realm pride might be left, and it leads to awful practices like my alliance would do on live.

We had basically an "X-Realm" alliance that encouraged not stopping one side from pushing a city once they got close enough because we could just reap the rewards of a defense from an easy pickings PUG or empty instance. This was before the RR80+ patch when sov actually meant something.

The other problem with 5x a day cities is your hardcore playerbase (us in this thread :^) ) will have full sov in no time and we will again have to turn to our pseudo endgame 6v6 for any kind of fun outside of gearing our alts in city sieges we took no part in making, just stopping our AAO farm or SC's to hop on in.

[Penril]

1.4.5 patch lol seriusly,
Non of the orginal design team was left at this stage of the game it's also known as the time were the game was the least ballanced due to overperforming gear. And you want to use that Dev team as an example?

You can read the patch notes from that site to get moast of the information
http://warhammeronline.wikia.com/wiki/Patch

Here's an outtake from 2007 from a interview with one of the Devs.

MMOSITE.COM: RvR system is one of the most important reasons why WAR is greeted by the players. However, players now have different views on the RvR system. What is your understanding about RvR and what are the differences between PvP and RvR in WAR?

Richard: PvP is all about the player and personal gain. RvR is about being part of a larger group and fighting epic battles for a cause. In WAR, it s about leading your army to the doors of your opponent s capital city, kicking them down and then burning and pillaging the whole place.

MOSITE.COM: What do you think of the instanced RvR in WAR? You know it is not only a surprise to many old DAoC gamers, but also a surprise to the current WoW gamers.

Richard: I think the instanced RvR in WAR will work out great. We have a lot of features in place, such as NPC Dogs of War, to prevent the problems experienced by players in other games that have instanced PvP. The instanced Scenarios aren t the only type of RvR in the game; there is open-field RvR with many battlefield objectives to fight over. People familiar with DAoC should feel at home in our RvR system, and hopefully people who have experienced instanced PvP in other games will enjoy ours much more.

And where exactly did he say classes should not be balanced to be competitive in a 6-man group? He is just talking about open RvR and how it is in WAR (leading your army to your opponent's capital city). Then you have instanced RvR (scenarios) which is completely different, and he simply mentions that there are other types of "RvR" (they used that word for everything; even a 1v1 is RvR to them).

He never mentioned balance, or specifically said that the game was not meant to be balanced around a 6-man.

Also, you make fun of the 1.4.5 devs but forget how horrible balance was at launch (BW/WE for example). Game was MUCH more balanced around all classes in 1.4.5 than it was at 1.3 (or earlier than that).

[grumcajs]

I wont talk about premade and pugs now

both Grulo and roadklirobin are right I think.

As it was stated - "rvr is about being part of a larger group" that mean 2grps + in my opinion. But 6 man is also a force that has a place in WAR. Its not 1 man, or 4 man. Its full group of players.

Problem is - you cannot balance all classes to be equally strong in 6v6 and lets say 24v24. Thats ok by me. But they should be all viable and comparable. So lets say you do not have slayer, you should be able to choose WL or engi that would fit in 6v6 and 24v24 too. Same as if you do not have WP, you can bring AM and it wouldnt be just /facepalm like it allways was.

Sure, some classes would still have higher ground but there wont be so high disparity between grp setups. And I think this is what should be meant by balance.

[Haojin]

Any suggesitons for buffing classes which already bad in 6 vs 6 ?

/discuss

[Jaycub]

Any suggesitons for buffing classes which already bad in 6 vs 6 ?

/discuss

I'm more interested in what is the cause for the melee train meta, or why RDPS in general are under-performing in strictly 6v6.