Return of Reckoning

@bloodi

Big scale fights just end up as aoe spam fests.
Of course it would be best to rework every class into an aoe spamming bot.

Because who even wants to think about assisting and applying pressure to specific targets when you could just spam your aoe mindlessly onto everyone. Why make this game even slightly complicated, just give every class the same three skills with other skins, and enjoy the 24vs24 balance.

You can't balance both 6v6 and 24v24. You're changing the battlefield conditions too much. Unless 24v24 is set up as 4 separate 6v6es, the strategy will change, and therefore the balance as well. You've already pointed out one example - Guard.

Every class can be overpowered if specced right and placed under the right conditions.
WL is very good 1v1 and in a 6 man.
Mara is very good 1v1 and in a 6 man.
Slayer. Very good in large scale and possibly 6 man.
Bw/sorc very versatile (very balanced mirrors)

Each class has a role which is why there are so many different classes. Order has very versatile and important range linebreakers as well as supporting tanks. Destro has very good melee linebreakers and supporting tanks. This idea might be multiplied by 1000 because people see that and flock to those classes. There is no argument because there is no imbalance. Each side has a corresponding play style that the members of said realm need to understand.

So, do the devs or at least Aza agree on balancing RoR grp vs grp wise?

Because then two 6 man grps can help very much, doing 6on6s on pts to help working out balancing issues.

My instinct would be to balance based on 6v6. No idea what the others think.

Coryphaus wrote:I challenge you to tell me how to balance 24 v 24

because if anything i feel you are deluded into believing that is possible

Just like you balance 6vs6? The same factors are in, you cannot stack cc because of immunities, the problems that guard brings in are out of the window when people have plenty of damage to burst through it.

And holy ****, this is the same absurd argument as with the BW/Sorc, you all believe that somehow mythic are completely braindead and never thought that more than 6 people on each side would be fighting at any given time, the game had plenty of tweaks around 24vs24, the aoe caps, the limitation to group buffs and aoe heals, all are done thinking about 24vs24 not 6vs6.

A warband is nothing more than 4 groups, its just a matter of synergy, waht works best as an anvil and what works best as a hammer, what kind of support a melee heavy wb needs, with how many range you can get away with etc.

tomato wrote:@bloodi

Big scale fights just end up as aoe spam fests.
Of course it would be best to rework every class into an aoe spamming bot.

Because who even wants to think about assisting and applying pressure to specific targets when you could just spam your aoe mindlessly onto everyone. Why make this game even slightly complicated, just give every class the same three skills with other skins, and enjoy the 24vs24 balance.

This is exactly what i was talking about, people who never bother to go in WB will talk about it like its just a aoe spamfest without much thought, some kind of mindless blob that will never be able of rational thought. How the hell do you expect to make the game fun for everyone when you cannot even treat everyone as human beings?

I love to suck my own **** as much as anyone and i had the same beliefs as you when i was younger, **** everyone, lets play top end circlejerk in here but i already saw too many good games being empty because, well, only eletist pricks like me were playing them.

Azarael wrote:You can't balance both 6v6 and 24v24. You're changing the battlefield conditions too much. Unless 24v24 is set up as 4 separate 6v6es, the strategy will change, and therefore the balance as well. You've already pointed out one example - Guard.

But the point everyone makes here is to only balance around top end 6vs6.

I am only explaining why that is a terrible idea.

Good games balance around top end.

Good succesful games balance around both top and casual level.

And 70% of war population probably more will never see, not even try 6vs6, why the **** would you focus only on it?

This is the Sunwell dilema all over again, Sunwell was the last raid of The Burning Crusade for WoW, great place, lots of fun yet only 3% of the Wow population put a step on it, let alone complete it. Blizzard decided that was an enormous waste of time and we got the Wotlk model, much more casual.

People bitched and moaned to no end yet Wotlk is for many the peak of WoW and WoW lasted many years.

Wildstar tried to aim for that superhardcore look how cool we are all fanbase and this happened

bloodi wrote:
Just like you balance 6vs6? The same factors are in, you cannot stack cc because of immunities, the problems that guard brings in are out of the window when people have plenty of damage to burst through it.

And holy ****, this is the same absurd argument as with the BW/Sorc, you all believe that somehow mythic are completely braindead and never thought that more than 6 people on each side would be fighting at any given time, the game had plenty of tweaks around 24vs24, the aoe caps, the limitation to group buffs and aoe heals, all are done thinking about 24vs24 not 6vs6.

A warband is nothing more than 4 groups, its just a matter of synergy, waht works best as an anvil and what works best as a hammer, what kind of support a melee heavy wb needs, with how many range you can get away with etc.

hence why you need you first tactically decide how you are going to use your cc and communicate with your team so that the mdps dont accidentally break stagger or something

I dont know what bs your saying about guard, it is an integral part of 6v6 play, its in massive zerg 24v24 than the useful ness of guard goes out the window when the dmg being out putted is so high vi AoE that it renders it useless

"Good succesful games balance around both top and casual level"

As far as I can see the problems occur when top tier players are fighting those casuals.
Solution: enable casuals to outplay skilled players......

bloodi wrote:But the point everyone makes here is to only balance around top end 6vs6.

I am only explaining why that is a terrible idea.

Good games balance around top end.

Good succesful games balance around both top and casual level.

And 70% of war population probably more will never see, not even try 6vs6, why the **** would you focus only on it?

This is the Sunwell dilema all over again, Sunwell was the last raid of The Burning Crusade for WoW, great place, lots of fun yet only 3% of the Wow population put a step on it, let alone complete it. Blizzard decided that was an enormous waste of time and we got the Wotlk model, much more casual.

People bitched and moaned to no end yet Wotlk is for many the peak of WoW and WoW lasted many years.

The WoW comparison is not correct for this situation.

Balancing an encounter, and choosing a level for which to focus class balance in a game, are two different things. If you balance an encounter for highly skilled players, you lock unskilled players out of it. This, indeed, is a bad strategy. This is not the case for class balancing in any way - balancing for the top level does not imply devastating the lower tiers, and it does not lock casual players out of anything.

However, we assume that casual players are more willing to deal with imbalances at their level as long as the class's maximum potential is good. In that case, weaknesses in the class are shown precisely because the player in question isn't good enough at it yet.

Or to put it another way, only the better players care about balance in the first place.

Azarael wrote: The WoW comparison is not correct for this situation.

Balancing an encounter, and choosing a level for which to focus class balance in a game, are two different things. If you balance an encounter for highly skilled players, you lock unskilled players out of it. This, indeed, is a bad strategy. This is not the case for class balancing in any way - balancing for the top level does not imply devastating the lower tiers, and it does not lock casual players out of anything.

The misunderstand me, the dilema with sunwell was not making it too dificult, was making it in the first place.

Is not a case of why are we making this so hard, is why are we making this when most people are not playing it at all.

That is why i mention it, why would you balance the game only around something most of your players dont do?

Azarael wrote:However, we assume that casual players are more willing to deal with imbalances at their level as long as the class's maximum potential is good. In that case, weaknesses in the class are shown precisely because the player in question isn't good enough at it yet.

Or to put it another way, only the better players care about balance in the first place.

You assume wrong, that is the problem, people with never blame themselves, you assume people have a critical epiphany when most of them will just ragequit and complain.

If we all played the most perfectly balanced and beatiful games, people would still play Virtua Fighter yet no one does.

https://twitter.com/scrubquotesx This is the kind of people you will get