Recent Topics

Ads

Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Let's talk about... everything else
User avatar
Danord
Suspended
Posts: 100

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#111 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:38 am

Not to be forgotten. The change to close quaters kinda killed bombing on live. Pre cq change i only remember orz = witch brew usage 😉
But after the st wb worked very well for sure.

Ads
User avatar
dur3al
Posts: 251

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#112 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:50 am

dur3al wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:22 am Its kinda funny that even you guys who partake in this form of playing forgot about WHY bombing warbands were created in the first place. It wasn't because it was the optimal spec to fight in an EQUAL fight against equally skilled opponents. It was created because its the optimal and easiest setup to fight against larger blobs who are usually uncoordinated themselves, as in 24x100 or so. But most importantly it is because its the absolutely optimal setup for defending keeps in this game (probably why in newer games such as GW2 you have multiple entrances to the fort and an open big ass capping point).

roadkillrobin wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:02 pm Ah this argument. "We can't progress the campain so lets not even try and farm kills instead. Kills is the only thing that mathers anyway". Imagine if the same logic would be used in soccer where you just run around and pass the ball within your team. Sure it can be fun I guess. So lets say kills would be passes, goals are objectives and zone flips are the match win coz thats essentially how they would be represented. Then you wouldn't care about the system you play in or the game as a whole for that mather coz you wanna do your own thing. Thats basicly what you're saying.
I watched the whole video. Your not fighting a full warbands in unison at any point.

This is the only point which makes some sense to me.

For example, in a scenario where you had a middle objective, and 2 equally geared/skilled warbands to fight each other, one bombing warband and another one built more in ST fashion - there is no doubt in my mind that if both would fight it out in the open the ST would destroy the bombing one, since its to easy to exploit the bombing warband's weaknesses.

But if the objective had some form of "LoS" or walls where the bombing warband could jump in and entrench themselves, even if after a while the ST warband would pick them up by pulling some targets & spreading so the AoE has no effect at all, it would take such time that the objective would be essentially "capped" - giving the "victory" to the bombing warband. Not that it matters in the long run anyway as scatterthewinds pointed out, we can get the same gear/rewards (perhaps even more efficiently) by farming kills. But in the grand "scheme and design of RvR" it would means that they won.

And this is exactly the reason why I'm completely opposed to an objective capture only style of RvR where overall kills don't matter. Someone here mentioned GW2 - and I played the competitive scene of it for a while and its exactly how I would like it to work in RvR here. You have objectives to capture & hold to build up points, but kills also make a huge part of the score, I'd say effectively 30 to 50% of the overall score. Making it way more competitive and leading to people actually wanting to kill and fight each other instead of blobbing up in such a force sitting on a flag discouraging the other side to engage such blob.

This is also part of the problem we have in RvR in general when it comes to why people tend to blob and zerg most of the times too. I've tried to talk about this a lot back then, during the the discussion in the [Implementation Feedback] RvR design thread - and probably some other topics related to that one..
Martyr's Square: Sync & Nerfedbuttons - enigma
Martyr's Square: Dureal & Method - Disrespect/It's Orz again
Badlands: Dureal & Alatheus - Exo
Karak-Norn: Sejanus - Blitz/Elementz

User avatar
Eathisword
Posts: 808

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#113 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:22 am

dur3al wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:22 am
Spoiler:
The most useful posts in the entire thread that it seems nobody bothered to read:

Sanao wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:52 pm
adei wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:37 pm [/b][/color]

Pretty much that, always found it odd that balance was focused around the smallest playerbase here, but I suppose it's because for how few they are, they are the most vocal bunch. 80% of the playerbase is just casual players looking to log in for some fun, join a random warband and solo play, maybe the odd small pug group. Maybe one day focusing on the majority of the playerbase will be a thing #nostalgia
Then you aren't making changes based around trying to make an objectively balanced game. Disregard for a second whatever style of play you prefer.

If you're going to make changes based around our perception of what most people take part in, then you're going to be making changes based around an area that is prone to overlooking mechanics of the game that interlink with one another. You're balancing around results that are made up of incomplete tests.

Does making changes as a result of conclusions drawn from more thorough testing not seem like a better way to approach things? This isn't about solo players vs PuGs vs 6mans vs Warbands, it's about a fundamental design philosophy.

Arguing for balance changes to be made based on an area of game play that doesn't utilize all of the tools available (even if that isn't every tool the game has to offer) doesn't seem logical if you're striving to create an objectively balanced game. No matter how popular that area of game play may be.

&&

Ramasee wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:50 pm Here is pretty much the only reason you balance considering the highest level of play:

If you balance for the average player, you will create things that when exploited become OP. This is because the average player does not sit down, do the math, talk it out with their mates, and find the bast way to murder the enemy. Then those "5%" of players will do it, and wipe the floor by exploiting what was missed.

The inverse and what the balance forums idea is:

Balance for the highest level of play, much less things can be exploited. Yeah lesser players will miss somethings that their classes are capable of and be less effective, but they can always improve and it doesn't create and unbalanced game.

=====
As for warbands, I find it dissatisfying that there are classes that are considered an actual liability to bring to warband (and it has truth to it). I want all classes to have at least 1 mastery path that is useful in warbands; doesn't have to become new meta, but at least enough to keep thoughts such as "Why is this WH in our warband, wish we had a real warband dps?" from being the truth. (I also want each class to have a build that makes it at least somewhat viabe in small content)

This would be my ultimate end goal in balance. However, there are many classes I don't have at r40/rr40 to start the proposals plus I'm sure people who play those classes would have more interesting ideas.

=====
Azarael wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:01 pm Feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong, but it has always been my standpoint that because optimal warband scale play marginalizes so many of the abilities each class has, balancing for it first, rather than second, is a poor idea. Look at how much Morale is driving the discussion and how classically limited compositions for warbands have been, to the extent that implementing racial morale tactics was infeasible because of double Knight double BW double WP.

There is a reason that elitism from the 6v6 community exists towards warband scale play. The kind of player who is drawn to 6v6 is drawn to anything competitive with what they feel is some depth. Why don't they appear to find it in warband scale play? Lack of coordination or lack of desire to coordinate can't be the answer there, so what is?
You are correct that warband marginalizes many abilities. Some classes don't have hardly any abilities that are useful for warband environments, and access to certain morales reduce viability more. Morale issue becomes more prominent with the recently reverted rates. I'd say rather than balancing small scale or large scale first and second, that you would do them concurrently making sure that warband changes don't bleed into 6v6 too much.

If you read the 2 posts above and still didn't understood why "balance" cannot be done in a warband sized scale OR casual players skill level, you need to re-read them until you do.. because its simply illogical to think otherwise lol.

Its obvious that when it comes to balance you've to keep all the game styles in mind, even soloing. And if a skill or spec was changed to be more competitive in a small scale environment, but at the same time it became completely OP in a soloing/warband or whatever style, that doesn't mean that the blame lies in trying to balance towards small scale - the blame lies in the fact that not all possibilities were considered when going through with the change, or were overlooked.

-/-

Now regarding the other parallel discussion between ST in a warband scale fight vs AoE in warband scale.

I'd just like to point out that all the so called "pro EU bombing squads" back in Karak-Norn would, & did, get absolutely demolished in an even fight, considering a 24 vs 24 scale fight against a proper premade 'ST' warband.

This was tried, tested and true during live as I recall when Orz obliterated all other bombing warbands from order when they ran throughout the lakes with a ST focused warband group. You guys forget that your strongest point, which is blobing your AoE dps to one spot, is also your biggest weakness.. A simple moral drain in that spot would completely **** up any moral bombing coordination they had - I did this countless times on my WH Sejanus with the set ability.

I'm sure there are other examples in RoR too, the video showed here is a good example on how easy it is to simply spread out (or kite) in order for the bombing warband to get nothing in its 'killing range' but tanks - good players won't get trapped at all in this
unless completely caught off-guard no matter how you spin it.

Its kinda funny that even you guys who partake in this form of playing forgot about WHY bombing warbands were created in the first place. It wasn't because it was the optimal spec to fight in an EQUAL fight against equally skilled opponents. It was created because its the optimal and easiest setup to fight against larger blobs who are usually uncoordinated themselves, as in 24x100 or so. But most importantly it is because its the absolutely optimal setup for defending keeps in this game (probably why in newer games such as GW2 you have multiple entrances to the fort and an open big ass capping point).

roadkillrobin wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:02 pm Ah this argument. "We can't progress the campain so lets not even try and farm kills instead. Kills is the only thing that mathers anyway". Imagine if the same logic would be used in soccer where you just run around and pass the ball within your team. Sure it can be fun I guess. So lets say kills would be passes, goals are objectives and zone flips are the match win coz thats essentially how they would be represented. Then you wouldn't care about the system you play in or the game as a whole for that mather coz you wanna do your own thing. Thats basicly what you're saying.
I watched the whole video. Your not fighting a full warbands in unison at any point.

This is the only point which makes some sense to me.

For example, in a scenario where you had a middle objective, and 2 equally geared/skilled warbands to fight each other, one bombing warband and another one built more in ST fashion - there is no doubt in my mind that if both would fight it out in the open the ST would destroy the bombing one, since its to easy to exploit the bombing warband's weaknesses.

But if the objective had some form of "LoS" or walls where the bombing warband could jump in and entrench themselves, even if after a while the ST warband would pick them up by pulling some targets & spreading so the AoE has no effect at all, it would take such time that the objective would be essentially "capped" - giving the "victory" to the bombing warband. Not that it matters in the long run anyway as scatterthewinds pointed out, we can get the same gear/rewards (perhaps even more efficiently) by farming kills. But in the grand "scheme and design of RvR" it would means that they won.
And this is exactly the reason why I'm completely opposed to an objective capture only style of RvR where overall kills don't matter. Someone here mentioned GW2 - and I played the competitive scene of it for a while and its exactly how I would like it to work in RvR here. You have objectives to capture & hold to build up points, but kills also make a huge part of the score, I'd say effectively 30 to 50% of the overall score. Making it way more competitive and leading to people actually wanting to kill and fight each other instead of blobbing up in such a force sitting on a flag discouraging the other side to engage such blob.
This. There is too many ways PvP can be played and rewarded in WAR/RoR to lose focus about it by thinking too much about keep capture and WBs. Ideally, we should think of ways to open the game more to different aspects and playstyles in the campaign instead of excluding them or treating them all as side games. Kills should count. BO held should count. Scenarios should count. Keep Lord kill should count. And all should be rewarded in proportion of the effort needed.

For example, if a player kill counts for 1 point, a scenario win could count for 50 points, as it takes more efforts/time. By making everything count, we are giving a clear vision for balance : everything counts. It would put an end to this never ending WB vs 6 man balance waste of time.

As said by some already, we should aim at making every class useful in WB and/or group, as long as it doesn't becomes blatantly exploitable in any other form of play.

Another alternative, is to clearly state that keep capture and WBs fights for points like BO are the game. Then balance around that and ignore everything else, since it doesn't count anyway in the game/campaign design.

A choice between an open game design or a finite one. Both are good options for balance imo. But lingering in between don't seem to be working.
Farfadet, RR72 shaman
Volgograd, RR80 IB
Video thread here.

User avatar
roadkillrobin
Posts: 2773

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#114 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:07 am

Spoiler:
Eathisword wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:22 am
dur3al wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:22 am
Spoiler:
The most useful posts in the entire thread that it seems nobody bothered to read:

Sanao wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:52 pm

Then you aren't making changes based around trying to make an objectively balanced game. Disregard for a second whatever style of play you prefer.

If you're going to make changes based around our perception of what most people take part in, then you're going to be making changes based around an area that is prone to overlooking mechanics of the game that interlink with one another. You're balancing around results that are made up of incomplete tests.

Does making changes as a result of conclusions drawn from more thorough testing not seem like a better way to approach things? This isn't about solo players vs PuGs vs 6mans vs Warbands, it's about a fundamental design philosophy.

Arguing for balance changes to be made based on an area of game play that doesn't utilize all of the tools available (even if that isn't every tool the game has to offer) doesn't seem logical if you're striving to create an objectively balanced game. No matter how popular that area of game play may be.

&&

Ramasee wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2018 8:50 pm Here is pretty much the only reason you balance considering the highest level of play:

If you balance for the average player, you will create things that when exploited become OP. This is because the average player does not sit down, do the math, talk it out with their mates, and find the bast way to murder the enemy. Then those "5%" of players will do it, and wipe the floor by exploiting what was missed.

The inverse and what the balance forums idea is:

Balance for the highest level of play, much less things can be exploited. Yeah lesser players will miss somethings that their classes are capable of and be less effective, but they can always improve and it doesn't create and unbalanced game.

=====
As for warbands, I find it dissatisfying that there are classes that are considered an actual liability to bring to warband (and it has truth to it). I want all classes to have at least 1 mastery path that is useful in warbands; doesn't have to become new meta, but at least enough to keep thoughts such as "Why is this WH in our warband, wish we had a real warband dps?" from being the truth. (I also want each class to have a build that makes it at least somewhat viabe in small content)

This would be my ultimate end goal in balance. However, there are many classes I don't have at r40/rr40 to start the proposals plus I'm sure people who play those classes would have more interesting ideas.

=====


You are correct that warband marginalizes many abilities. Some classes don't have hardly any abilities that are useful for warband environments, and access to certain morales reduce viability more. Morale issue becomes more prominent with the recently reverted rates. I'd say rather than balancing small scale or large scale first and second, that you would do them concurrently making sure that warband changes don't bleed into 6v6 too much.

If you read the 2 posts above and still didn't understood why "balance" cannot be done in a warband sized scale OR casual players skill level, you need to re-read them until you do.. because its simply illogical to think otherwise lol.

Its obvious that when it comes to balance you've to keep all the game styles in mind, even soloing. And if a skill or spec was changed to be more competitive in a small scale environment, but at the same time it became completely OP in a soloing/warband or whatever style, that doesn't mean that the blame lies in trying to balance towards small scale - the blame lies in the fact that not all possibilities were considered when going through with the change, or were overlooked.

-/-

Now regarding the other parallel discussion between ST in a warband scale fight vs AoE in warband scale.

I'd just like to point out that all the so called "pro EU bombing squads" back in Karak-Norn would, & did, get absolutely demolished in an even fight, considering a 24 vs 24 scale fight against a proper premade 'ST' warband.

This was tried, tested and true during live as I recall when Orz obliterated all other bombing warbands from order when they ran throughout the lakes with a ST focused warband group. You guys forget that your strongest point, which is blobing your AoE dps to one spot, is also your biggest weakness.. A simple moral drain in that spot would completely **** up any moral bombing coordination they had - I did this countless times on my WH Sejanus with the set ability.

I'm sure there are other examples in RoR too, the video showed here is a good example on how easy it is to simply spread out (or kite) in order for the bombing warband to get nothing in its 'killing range' but tanks - good players won't get trapped at all in this
unless completely caught off-guard no matter how you spin it.

Its kinda funny that even you guys who partake in this form of playing forgot about WHY bombing warbands were created in the first place. It wasn't because it was the optimal spec to fight in an EQUAL fight against equally skilled opponents. It was created because its the optimal and easiest setup to fight against larger blobs who are usually uncoordinated themselves, as in 24x100 or so. But most importantly it is because its the absolutely optimal setup for defending keeps in this game (probably why in newer games such as GW2 you have multiple entrances to the fort and an open big ass capping point).

roadkillrobin wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:02 pm Ah this argument. "We can't progress the campain so lets not even try and farm kills instead. Kills is the only thing that mathers anyway". Imagine if the same logic would be used in soccer where you just run around and pass the ball within your team. Sure it can be fun I guess. So lets say kills would be passes, goals are objectives and zone flips are the match win coz thats essentially how they would be represented. Then you wouldn't care about the system you play in or the game as a whole for that mather coz you wanna do your own thing. Thats basicly what you're saying.
I watched the whole video. Your not fighting a full warbands in unison at any point.

This is the only point which makes some sense to me.

For example, in a scenario where you had a middle objective, and 2 equally geared/skilled warbands to fight each other, one bombing warband and another one built more in ST fashion - there is no doubt in my mind that if both would fight it out in the open the ST would destroy the bombing one, since its to easy to exploit the bombing warband's weaknesses.

But if the objective had some form of "LoS" or walls where the bombing warband could jump in and entrench themselves, even if after a while the ST warband would pick them up by pulling some targets & spreading so the AoE has no effect at all, it would take such time that the objective would be essentially "capped" - giving the "victory" to the bombing warband. Not that it matters in the long run anyway as scatterthewinds pointed out, we can get the same gear/rewards (perhaps even more efficiently) by farming kills. But in the grand "scheme and design of RvR" it would means that they won.
And this is exactly the reason why I'm completely opposed to an objective capture only style of RvR where overall kills don't matter. Someone here mentioned GW2 - and I played the competitive scene of it for a while and its exactly how I would like it to work in RvR here. You have objectives to capture & hold to build up points, but kills also make a huge part of the score, I'd say effectively 30 to 50% of the overall score. Making it way more competitive and leading to people actually wanting to kill and fight each other instead of blobbing up in such a force sitting on a flag discouraging the other side to engage such blob.
This. There is too many ways PvP can be played and rewarded in WAR/RoR to lose focus about it by thinking too much about keep capture and WBs. Ideally, we should think of ways to open the game more to different aspects and playstyles in the campaign instead of excluding them or treating them all as side games. Kills should count. BO held should count. Scenarios should count. Keep Lord kill should count. And all should be rewarded in proportion of the effort needed.

For example, if a player kill counts for 1 point, a scenario win could count for 50 points, as it takes more efforts/time. By making everything count, we are giving a clear vision for balance : everything counts. It would put an end to this never ending WB vs 6 man balance waste of time.

As said by some already, we should aim at making every class useful in WB and/or group, as long as it doesn't becomes blatantly exploitable in any other form of play.

Another alternative, is to clearly state that keep capture and WBs fights for points like BO are the game. Then balance around that and ignore everything else, since it doesn't count anyway in the game/campaign design.

A choice between an open game design or a finite one. Both are good options for balance imo. But lingering in between don't seem to be working.
Your describing the system the game was launched with. Had tons of flaws but is actually one of the best wellrounded system game have had.

But I dissagree. Scenarios should imo also be more focused around the objectives. It should give you the reason to kill players to claim, or kill players to defend. Not just killing players in a loop like a deathmatch. Rewarding it removes any type of depth of strategy from the game and it creates bad behaviour like spawn/warcamp camping. It also removes any strategy that does't include killing.

I also find it a bit hypocritical that small scale community always push for a system of rewards to their prefered playstyle in any context of the game while the large scale playerbase actually have to comfort to the rules and size of scenarios to get the scenario rewards.
Image

User avatar
Kragg
Posts: 1769

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#115 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:16 am

roadkillrobin wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:07 am
I also find it a bit hypocritical that small scale community always push for a system of rewards to their prefered playstyle in any context of the game while the large scale playerbase actually have to comfort to the rules and size of scenarios to get the scenario rewards.
Seconded. I understand why they do it but at times its blatantly obvious.
Image
Sergeant-Major Drengk Burloksson, RR 85 Sniper
Hulfdan Irongrip, RR 81 Ironbreaker
Proud Founder of the 3rd Bitterstone Thunderers
Alliance officer of the Grand Alliance

User avatar
Aurandilaz
Posts: 1896

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#116 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:53 am

...imagine if capturing BOs, keeps, fighting Lord, killing players - like all of them counted; oh wait they already do, it all contributes to your final roll and renown reward for zone lock.
Hell, they even implemented a measure to make even 6mans useful for keep fights, that is if they do not want to play in "muh evil warband blob zerg formations" at keep fights, they can and should go fight and hold BO flags which then make Lord either harder or easier to kill, but lets try guess how many of the pro 6mans are out there holding a flag making a Keep lord kill easier for their realm...

And regarding ST wb picking apart a AoE specced/focused WB, obviously it can be done, nothing new there. Some good healers, good tanks that can occasionally harass them without dying, decent amount of morale drains, every single warband player actually awake and aware of their positioning, 1-2 ranged assisttrains focusing on single targets and maras picking ones and twos away from the murderball with TE. Yeah, already doable, just takes shiitton of time compared to classic AoE vs AoE setting and requires possibly more disciplined players - ROR premade warbands could achieve same, random pugs nuh noh.
And if the defenders want, they might possible change their location/positioning so they cannot be picked in the open by wide-spreading enemies, possibly try run a ST assisttrain of some sort and have all their healers focus heal on whoever is getting picked apart by ST Sorc rotations.
However with the remaining playerbase of RoR and the current "competition" in large scale RvR, such complex measures just aren't needed.
Leading to best possible setup being a warband with maxed out AoE pressure and maxed out debuff potential.

User avatar
Glorian
Posts: 4976

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#117 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:55 am

Aurandilaz wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:53 am ...
However with the remaining playerbase of RoR and the current "competition" in large scale RvR, such complex measures just aren't needed.
Leading to best possible setup being a warband with maxed out AoE pressure and maxed out debuff potential.
Pretty much that:
Movement-AoE-Morals
These are the cornerstones of current Warbands. Coordinating these and you are good to go.

User avatar
dur3al
Posts: 251

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#118 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:36 pm

roadkillrobin wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:07 am Your describing the system the game was launched with. Had tons of flaws but is actually one of the best wellrounded system game have had.

The VP system was one of the best by far that we had in WAR, which actually made everyone matter - as Volgo said it - the only issue with it was the fact that it basically REQUIRED enemies to fight against, so in low population times or in a certain time-zone when only one side was active, it basically blocked the entire progress because you required kills to go through.

Its why I suggested to have both kills & captured objectives matter, so when one side is completely outnumbering the other side, they will still progress but receiving less # of rewards because they didn't do much fighting at all. You could make it so that when there is not much fighting/killing that it takes twice (example) as long to lock a zone, but to be honest this is just punishing one side (the zerging one) for simply not having enemies, which is something they cannot control at all.

roadkillrobin wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:07 am But I dissagree. Scenarios should imo also be more focused around the objectives. It should give you the reason to kill players to claim, or kill players to defend. Not just killing players in a loop like a deathmatch. Rewarding it removes any type of depth of strategy from the game and it creates bad behaviour like spawn/warcamp camping. It also removes any strategy that does't include killing.

Aurandilaz wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:53 am ...imagine if capturing BOs, keeps, fighting Lord, killing players - like all of them counted; oh wait they already do, it all contributes to your final roll and renown reward for zone lock.
Hell, they even implemented a measure to make even 6mans useful for keep fights, that is if they do not want to play in "muh evil warband blob zerg formations" at keep fights, they can and should go fight and hold BO flags which then make Lord either harder or easier to kill, but lets try guess how many of the pro 6mans are out there holding a flag making a Keep lord kill easier for their realm...

And regarding ST wb picking apart a AoE specced/focused WB, obviously it can be done, nothing new there. Some good healers, good tanks that can occasionally harass them without dying, decent amount of morale drains, every single warband player actually awake and aware of their positioning, 1-2 ranged assisttrains focusing on single targets and maras picking ones and twos away from the murderball with TE. Yeah, already doable, just takes shiitton of time compared to classic AoE vs AoE setting and requires possibly more disciplined players - ROR premade warbands could achieve same, random pugs nuh noh.
And if the defenders want, they might possible change their location/positioning so they cannot be picked in the open by wide-spreading enemies, possibly try run a ST assisttrain of some sort and have all their healers focus heal on whoever is getting picked apart by ST Sorc rotations.
However with the remaining playerbase of RoR and the current "competition" in large scale RvR, such complex measures just aren't needed.
Leading to best possible setup being a warband with maxed out AoE pressure and maxed out debuff potential.

So let me try be as clear as possible for everyone to understand. Firstly we were talking about RvR campaign, not really scenarios - but in a sense it could be applied there also, since the things you said that would happen, such as warcamp spawning, actually already happen today - in the system of objectives being the only source of points. And in the new system where kills add points to the scoreboard you could still win by not killing anyone, just have to outcap your enemies and not die to much. Anyway, back to topic, lets focus on what was said to back up your argument:

roadkillrobin wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:02 pm Ah this argument. "We can't progress the campain so lets not even try and farm kills instead. Kills is the only thing that mathers anyway". Imagine if the same logic would be used in soccer where you just run around and pass the ball within your team.

In my previous post I acknowledge that if you are "playing the game" wanting your faction to "win", then taking objectives and capturing zones is currently the only way to go. I can make 500 kills in a zone (and get many gold bags in return) but if the other faction locks it, my side "lost" essentially.

1) Since the only way to progress your faction in RvR is taking objectives, the logical/easiest way to go about them is to mass all of your forces to one group (blobbing) and take the objectives in order, one by one. If one of your objectives is assaulted after the BO timer is off, you proceed to move your whole blob there to reduce the chance of losing that fight which would set you back - and there is no penalty for it because the other objectives are locked, there is no mechanic which induces the blob to be split, this has always been a problem after the VP system.

2) Its been established (in my previous post) that the easiest way to fight against a blob & to defend/attack an objective (big part due terrain) is by abusing a large amount of AoE in choke points where people are forced to go through if they want to re-take or attack that objective.

3) This is why the perception of most of the player base is that everyone should go into warbands and stack AoE to help their faction and properly "play the game". Essentially because the current RvR system demands players to blob in order to "win", you're saying that the "balancing" should be in the direction to deal with that. You're using the currently broken RvR system to justify balancing towards large scale. This is the fallacy of the argument.

Bombing and "large scale" as you call it, neglects many skills and synergies so you're basically alienating 70% of what a class can potentially do. As you say it yourselves (and I've also experienced playing with & against warbands in this game for god knows how long), within a warband you reduce a whole class spec & player to be simply an "AoE spam guy" or a "ress spam guy" or a "moral drain spam guy". You have such a mass of players in one spot that one class can literally get away with spamming one thing only, because you've many others defending him (or he is just sitting in the safety inside the keep walls) and covering the other things/roles he should be doing, such as ressing/debuffing/cleansing and many other things his class can achieve.

Let alone the fact that how on EARTH can you fine tune and find any sort of balanced game-play when you've to enter a small area while receiving instantly 20k damage without any sort of counter by cunts who are LoSing you behind a wall? And I'm not even talking about the side effects of crashes and general lag that it happens while at it. Have you guys had any decency to ever thought about it while advocating that balance should be done to embrace that?

What you guys fail to understand is that general balancing shouldn't be done towards any sort of playing size, be it solo, premades or warbands.

The only REASON why balancing skills should take into consideration the effects of it within the GROUP of 6 other players (not necessarily a premade in the sense of elitists groups) is because most of your group skills reach only up to the other 5 players in your group.

Good god you guys are thick, I'll re-quote since it still seems people didn't get it, this guy said it best in the beginning of the thread which is why I initiated my thoughts about this topic quoting him:

Sanao wrote: Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:52 pm Then you aren't making changes based around trying to make an objectively balanced game. Disregard for a second whatever style of play you prefer.

If you're going to make changes based around our perception of what most people take part in, then you're going to be making changes based around an area that is prone to overlooking mechanics of the game that interlink with one another. You're balancing around results that are made up of incomplete tests.

Does making changes as a result of conclusions drawn from more thorough testing not seem like a better way to approach things? This isn't about solo players vs PuGs vs 6mans vs Warbands, it's about a fundamental design philosophy.

Arguing for balance changes to be made based on an area of game play that doesn't utilize all of the tools available (even if that isn't every tool the game has to offer) doesn't seem logical if you're striving to create an objectively balanced game. No matter how popular that area of game play may be.

The same logic applies if balancing is only done towards groups of 6 considering 2 tanks, 2 healers and 2 melee dpses - as you guys tend to think that's the only viable "premade" format out there. It shouldn't. Because you're neglecting the effects of having a 2 ranged dps, 1 tank & 1 melee dps in the group - or 3 healers being one of them hybrid for a slot of a dps & so on.

Kragg wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:16 am
roadkillrobin wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:07 am I also find it a bit hypocritical that small scale community always push for a system of rewards to their prefered playstyle in any context of the game while the large scale playerbase actually have to comfort to the rules and size of scenarios to get the scenario rewards.
Seconded. I understand why they do it but at times its blatantly obvious.

Its very funny how you guys are quickly jumping to conclusions & making assumptions (while you tell me that elitists have a toxic attitude).. but my suggestion enables ANY sort of organized play, including warband groups too. How about when you guys ripe 200+ kills in the zone fighting blobs but in the end it really amounts to nothing, because you're still outnumbered 5:1? Shouldn't the 200 kills you did against their 40 kills (example) matter in the grand scheme of RvR? This would potentially enable and push everyone to try and be more organized & better to increase their kill tally, while at the same time giving their side a small fighting chance, when completely outnumbered, to the campaign progression that you guys care so much. Not only that but how about the soloers or duos who would somewhat also contribute by ganking and killing enemies. Its really a no brainner change to me, but whatever, I've detailed much of this in that old thread I linked somewhere last year..
Martyr's Square: Sync & Nerfedbuttons - enigma
Martyr's Square: Dureal & Method - Disrespect/It's Orz again
Badlands: Dureal & Alatheus - Exo
Karak-Norn: Sejanus - Blitz/Elementz

Ads
User avatar
Aurandilaz
Posts: 1896

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#119 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:18 pm

You really don't like the concept of REALM versus REALM warfare...
And screw the campaign, ganking lowbie soloplayers with a 6man should be the ultimate way to decide zone dominance...?
So many other games out there with good singleplayer/smallscale options... don't understand why RoR would have to be completely altered because "blobbing bad" "feel ashamed for using AoE" "how dare you run in a 24man guild warband" "why you holding that flag go queue for 6v6 dude" attitudes. ;)

User avatar
dur3al
Posts: 251

Re: Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

Post#120 » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:48 am

Aurandilaz wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:18 pm You really don't like the concept of REALM versus REALM warfare...
And screw the campaign, ganking lowbie soloplayers with a 6man should be the ultimate way to decide zone dominance...?
So many other games out there with good singleplayer/smallscale options... don't understand why RoR would have to be completely altered because "blobbing bad" "feel ashamed for using AoE" "how dare you run in a 24man guild warband" "why you holding that flag go queue for 6v6 dude" attitudes. ;)

Which part of "helping contribute towards the final score" you did not understand?
Which part of of "small fighting chance" did you not understand?
Which part of "both should contribute'" did you not understand?

dur3al wrote: Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:36 pm This would potentially enable and push everyone to try and be more organized & better to increase their kill tally, while at the same time giving their side a small fighting chance, when completely outnumbered, to the campaign progression that you guys care so much. Not only that but how about the soloers or duos who would somewhat also contribute by ganking and killing enemies. Its really a no brainner change to me, but whatever, I've detailed much of this in that old thread I linked somewhere last year..

Nowhere I said "it should be ultimate way to decide zone dominance". Are you lying just because you cannot come with decent ideas and arguments into the topic? I'm not the one acting like a fool putting words where they were not written, trying to exaggerate what was said in order to make your side of the argument more favorable. The "attitudes" are coming from people like you.
Martyr's Square: Sync & Nerfedbuttons - enigma
Martyr's Square: Dureal & Method - Disrespect/It's Orz again
Badlands: Dureal & Alatheus - Exo
Karak-Norn: Sejanus - Blitz/Elementz

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 38 guests