Min max vs pug level difference.

[Acidic]

Hi
Thought With the balance changes coming up to understanding of what the scale of difference should be between min maxed groups/warbands and unorgassed .

Typically balance is based around the max skill level and this is a good thing but the question I raise here is what the levels should be between skilled and ppl like me

This I break down into a few categories :
A) positioning
B) own skill buffing
C) group and team mates


As I see:
A) ok I can play
B) ok my class I understand
C) the leveled here and combos are to be considered how much they should affect other classes and how much impact group structure plays.

Just now I see that there is a reasonable synergy between classes and that organized min max groups do well but that is not an issue, the issue is what should the skill bar for this game be set at ?

[dansari]

Sort of... gameplay is balanced around what an optimal group can achieve. What we don't really do is balance based on the very best players on their mains; it would mean nerfing stuff unnecessarily just because good players are good. Basically what we mean when we say that is that we want to balance around competent groups. If you want to play 2 SMs, 2 grace WPs, and 2 WLs, that's your prerogative -- there can be fun in that, but don't necessarily expect that we will give WL an outg hd just because they don't have one in that setup, as an example.

[Ramasee]

There is an idea in the community about the skill level differences in each class. In general, there will always be classes that have a smaller skill ceiling in order to achieve greatness. This is something that will in general be maintained. You also want some classes that have a more variable skill gap for players that do enjoy being able to eek out maximum effectiveness from their class.

The wonderful (and terrible?) thing about large scale combat is that the skill ceiling is inherently low to be effective. Each role only has a handful of skills that they need to do in order to accomplish their job and mistakes can be absorbed by other people doing well. So design goal here is to limit impressively OP warband organizations (specially between the factions) and to make sure every career is a viable option.

[Acidic]

Sort of... gameplay is balanced around what an optimal group can achieve. What we don't really do is balance based on the very best players on their mains; it would mean nerfing stuff unnecessarily just because good players are good. Basically what we mean when we say that is that we want to balance around competent groups. If you want to play 2 SMs, 2 grace WPs, and 2 WLs, that's your prerogative -- there can be fun in that, but don't necessarily expect that we will give WL an outg hd just because they don't have one in that setup, as an example.

Close to what the thread is about but not quite.
The question even if a bit wordy was close to matching the second response and that is. How optimal play/ grouping is considered to compete with try hard groups.
I believe balance is and needs to be based around best combo/ spec but what is not clear is how far the best combo is meant to be above less organized groups. I accept that the question is hard to answer as “less optimized” is hard to define and could be in the extreme considered as afk.
The best analogy to the question is how the balance plans consider a routined guild min max warband over a try hard warband

[Eathisword]

I accept that the question is hard to answer as “less optimized” is hard to define and could be in the extreme considered as afk.
The best analogy to the question is how the balance plans consider a routined guild min max warband over a try hard warband

Its actually quite simple to answer. I am not part of the 'team', so I do not know how they 'plan' or 'think' about things. But, in my knowledge of the game, this discrepancy I simply describe in my head as : effective health pool.

The higher the 'skill' a given player or group has, the higher he/it can bring is effective Health pool compared to his enemy. For example, a pro kiter SH, kiting 2 mdps has an effective health pool that is infinite since he will take 0 damage while he kills the other 2. Same for a WE that can burst a target before the opening KD is over. Conversely, 2 evenly matched groups will both have infinite health pool. No one dies. Happens in evenly matched 6v6 and those generally last till one side makes a mistake.

Now, the difference needed for a wipe is very small. As soon as one group gains even a smallish advantages in effective health pool over the opposition, gets 1 kill, wipe is coming exponentially fast after that, given equal numbers.

Hence, imo, it doesn't really matter to 'scale' the skill difference. As soon as there is one, even smallish, its a wipe as soon as the first player dies pretty much. Hence why we see very good groups wipe in 30s in 6v6. Or very average guild group wipe decent pug in scenario, for example. The skill gap might seem to be HUGE because of it, but it actually probably isn't. Any size of gap (which can be explained by coms, team comp, gear, etc.) will eventually lead to a fast wipe, which explains why most 6 man or organized group will try to kite back and reset the fight as soon as they lose the tie or the upper hand.

Think of it as a healer trying to heal someone taking damage. As soon as the damage is even slightly higher than the heal output, its a done deal. The rest is just how long it'll take. So basically we could 'balance' to make it take super long, or make it super fast. But the outcome is the same. It only changes the pace of the game, not the nature of it.

Hence why I said the scale of it don't really matter. Its basically the same thing in every PvP game.

My 2 cents theory craft anyway.

[Ramasee]

Are you talking optimized team building versus a collection of classes they happen to had. Both sides having equal player/leadership skill?

Or are we talking about a difference in skill for each side?

Edit: Love me a man/woman who speaks in EHP.

[peterthepan3]

Just now I see that there is a reasonable synergy between classes and that organized min max groups do well but that is not an issue, the issue is what should the skill bar for this game be set at ?

RoR is a very easy game to get to grips with, and compared to other games only requires a modicum of effort in order to reap the rewards. The 'skill bar' has always been low, but actual balance discussions are conducted assuming competent play from player of class in question (playing as good as possible within a relevant environment). Not sure I understood your question well but there's my 2c.

[dansari]

Yeah your question is pretty tough to answer. It's all relative, right? I mean, balance changes must occur by assuming min/max, but it doesn't mean that you need to play at min/max, or even anywhere close to that, to achieve results in the game. I would argue in some instances, we must acknowledge how an average player (a normal player, a casual player, one who we must also acknowledge makes up the majority of the player base) is able to deal with another average player's class. There are only a few examples of this being overtuned, but GTDC is one... How does the *average* player deal with the use case and are there enough tools available to an average player to make that happen? That's an extreme example and it doesn't necessarily fall under the "min/max" mindset, imo.

[Valfaros]

Sort of... gameplay is balanced around what an optimal group can achieve. What we don't really do is balance based on the very best players on their mains; it would mean nerfing stuff unnecessarily just because good players are good. Basically what we mean when we say that is that we want to balance around competent groups. If you want to play 2 SMs, 2 grace WPs, and 2 WLs, that's your prerogative -- there can be fun in that, but don't necessarily expect that we will give WL an outg hd just because they don't have one in that setup, as an example.

Just out of curiosity how do you decide what an optimal group is supposed to be and which is therefore used for balance as you say. Because changing the balance of classes might changes which setup is optimal (meta) therefore changing your point of where you balance groups around. So essentially what I think is the best case would be that every setup is balanced even the ridiculus ones atleast to be very close (of course there is always a best setup however the discrepancy should be small). While I know this is hard or close to impossible it should still be a target to aim for. It would definitly lead to more intressting fights instead of the same setups going against the same setups over and over again.
I agree on the point that you can't give a 2 SMs, 2 grace WPs and 2 WLs every tool a more mixed group brings however I think they should bring their own benefits. An example of such a strange combo probabbly was the group that utilized 'Ere we go!. They were counting on one tool that stacks. Warhammer in that regard does a poor job to bring effects that are desirable to stack which therefore limits the viability of most setups which I think is a shame. E.g. armor debuffs are good example.
What I always hoped for is that setups that are lackluster get buffed and setups which are meta get tuned down. Nothing is more fun than moving away from a meta and getting beaten by a comb you've never seen / or beat the meta with a new comb and I'm speaking about not just exchanging 1 meele with another like it happend on order with asw.


As a sidenote if I'm not mistaken this group can bring both inc hd and outg hd but I'm unsure if I didn't keep track of the changes you make since I'm not playing that activly anymore. Additionally I'm not sure if this perfectly fits here but I didn't want to open a new thread.

[wonshot]

Title of the topic;
"Min max vs pug level difference"

So after seeing how you usually make very indirect topics complaining about a class or some abilities, trying to create conversation without directly call out if there is something you dont like (can read your post history to see how you did so with Brightwizard and M2 to get it nerfed) Now you are in a situation where running your full utility Destro warbands, fully decked out to counter nerfed Brightwizard heavily stacked order warbands (CNTK and DnD) And still not finding much succes.

Honestly, instead of looking at balancing and trying to get stuff nerfed how about actually accepting the situation and the gab between organized guilds vs pugs with /or without fully organized setups. Instead of looking for things to complain about on Order side, look towards Destro side and see what NRM have been doing lately because they are the only good fights left on this server.

Lets actually look at some of the timestamps here:
- Other orderwarbands ran bw bomb warbands with old flashfire for a looong time on RoR
- Other orderwarbands ran bw bomb warbands with M2

But as soon as a premade guild comes to the server with a bunch of veterans and use the same playstyle they have used since 2009. it is time to get **** nerfed to the ground, where as others did use the exact same tools but to some lesser degree and therefor no need for changes.

I am not saying your complains are uncalled for, and some of the changes might have been needed. But maybe also accept that the difference in a world-first type of warband leader with the dedication of a madman will outperform your anti BW warbands, and eventhough nerfs, setup and numbers might close the gab. There will always be a gab.

This was not meant as a personal attack, I respect people for coming out fighting, even if i dont like the way they fight. But for the love of Karl Franz, just look at the bigger picture. (and give back old Close quaters, flashfire and M2) and I will show you how huge the gab really is!