Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

[Scottx125]

Does the OP understand that the ideal WB is built by putting together 4 6xman teams?

As much as I dislike the 6v6 elitism it is the basic foundation of the game. Balance 6v6 properly and then you balance 24 v 24 by direct result.

I sort of agree. But balance should be done from the ground up. Starting with each class having its pro's and con's, this includes having other classes which counter your class, or in WAR's case a better way of doing this is having specs that counter other specs. An example is BW AOE spec which counters Sorc AOE spec. Once you've got 1v1 balance, scale that up to 6v6 balance to see how it effects gameplay. Do some tweaking to make sure it doesn't impact 1v1 too much whilst balancing 6v6 as much as possible. Then that should be enough. There may be some reason to do 24v24 testing, but honestly considering most group based abilities function in a party framework, I don't see the need to really go beyond 6v6 unless absolutely necessary.

[peterthepan3]

Not to mention, that again- idea teams is not how 99% of the ingame encounters actually happen.

That is a player issue, then. If 99% of encounters occur with people turning their monitors off, should we balance around this?

[Zxul]

2. I don't understand the point you're making here, mate.

Its simple- a pug wb isn't a perfect match of abilities (realistically- even if you try, how often will you get to build an ideal wb with RoR low playerbase, not to mention- what exactly do you expect the large majority of players which ain't set up for an ideal wb to do?- and "switch spec cause" isn't an answer).

What is actually being used in wb environment is aoe of different types (aoe heals, aoe cleanse, aoe dmg, aoe moral drains, ets), while the rest of abilities are used pretty much the same way they are used in solo play. Which should be the actual base for balancing.

[Stophy22]

I think 6v6 balancing is a good starting point for trying something as hard as "balancing".

As a solo/duo roamer at times it feels like I actually can't do anything but then there's time where I win 1 on 3's or 2 on 6, and those moments, are what I play for.

If the game was balanced for 24vs24 I think I would quickly find myself not able to handle even the slightest disadvantage (if I'm understanding what balancing in a 24v24 situation vs a 6v6 situation means.) And I very much like being able to roam around all by myself and throw myself into conflict and come out with a kill or 2. Honestly I'm not sure what balancing via 6v6 truly means... But I understand it means the balance focus is smaller scale and I think that's important for feeling important in the larger fights, and not getting lost in the sauce.

The thing about balancing is you won't always make everyone happy, and I think the current way balancing happens or is handled is handled pretty well. I think live needs to be forgotten and RoR needs to prosper. Live will always be a fun memory but in my eyes RoR is a treasure given to us by a community of people who do there best and everyone needs to ask a little less and give thanks a little more.

With that being said some things do need to be addressed not in a 6v6 setting but in a Destro vs Order situation. Order has gotten a hold of some ranged knockdowns and will not share. But as a destro player this might be taken as bias (And honestly I do think order is stronger than destro) but this is probably just regarded as my opinion, which is completely fine because I understand it's just an opinion and probably not factual as I have little factual evidence of this being true. But how one player feels is important when playing a game! Haha but in all seriousness, balance won't be obtained completely in an MMORPG without it feeling stale.

With all that has been said I offer a TLDR: 6v6 balancing is healthy for the game in my honest opinion, but maybe don't limit your sights to only 6v6 balance as *one faction might have an advantage that the other does not possess*? Just wanted to chime in with my opinion!

*But this could also just be the point of "choosing" a faction to play...

[Ramasee]

I think you might have missed the point. Game balance will not be considered for LESS than 6v6, that does not mean that all balance decisions are or should be aimed at 6v6 in mind.

Balance is and should be looked at on warband scale and small scale. It also is and should be created expecting people to use the items/abilities/morales/tactics available to them, rather than blindly spamming random stuff. The rules guiding balance discussion are excellent for getting us eventually to game balance where large scale and small scale combat have many viable options. Duels do not matter and are impossible to balance in a game with classes.

[Sanao]

Seriously, you're displaying a staggering lack of comprehension in your posts, Zxul.

Nowhere has it been asserted by Ramasee within any of these morale related balance topics that 6v6 is or should be the primary goal for balance. The suggestions being made are done so with warband level play at the core of the motivation for the discussion.

It has been asserted that 6v6 is the minimum consideration. I appreciate that you enjoy playing as a solo DoK with an unorthodox build, or that if you do group it is within a PuG setting, but please stop using those experiences as the platform for your argument.

Just because a method of playing is the most prevalent does not automatically mean that it is therefore the best to balance from. The game is a group game, when we talk about balancing for 6man or warbands the inherent implication is that they are also organized. Meaning that they have given thought to the composition of the group(s) and have attempted to maximize synergies and minimize fragmentation of the classes making up those groups. Following this, the logical progression is that the players within the group understand how to play the classes to an acceptable degree, whether they are playing at 6man or warband scale. This leaves you with the best odds of understanding how groups function in practice, not just theory.

You cannot attempt to balance around PuG groups that will, as an inevitable result of them being pick up groups, not be in a position to maximize those synergies.

[Azarael]

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?

[Zxul]

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?

There is an argument that what applies in 6v6 applies even more in 1v1, however that isn't used for balancing.

The argument in this thread though is:

1. 4 x ideal 6man isn't an ideal wb, since different abilities used in wb scale- mainly aoe (see mara aoe moral drain spec, which is looked for in wbs but not in 6man). Which I think you agree about.
2. That considering most of wbs aren't made of ideal cherry picked best synergy class builds, balancing around those achieves nothing for general game balance. "The inherent implication is that they are also organized", "have attempted to maximize synergies and minimize fragmentation of the classes ", as was posted by some poster above- majority of players in actual game don't fit those, and quite a few couldn't fit even if they tried (say, we/wh in wb), so what balancing about those achieves?

[Azarael]

I agree on point 1. This much is obvious - if WB play were 4 6 mans then it would be equivalent to 6v6 play.

Point 2. You balance for the best possible play first. If no, or very few, people are playing to a level beyond PUG, what's the point?

(Also, 1v1 is as distinct from 6v6 as WB scale play is. Sorry.)

[Aurandilaz]

No. IMO balance should only consider warband scale. If you balance 6 man, some classes are going to either be useless at that scale (which is bad balancing), or incredibly OP in larger scale due to AOE abilities. To me 6v6 is the same as dueling, an irrelevant side game that is only supported by a small portion of the community. The main game is warband scale, and is what should be balanced around.

Pretty much this. Dozens of games for smallscale pvping, limited amount of games that revolved around Realm versus Realm warfare, yet most of the balancing here is done around 6man scale, mostly ignoring the M A I N campaign of the game and the warbands doing the actual rvr there. The 6man is scene is known for its absurd levels of toxicity (occasional open burst that escapes their internal voicecoms and reveals just how much they value "average dumb scrubs"...) here, good luck attracting new players to that thing when you facing +70rr players with a decade of WAR experience.

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?

Classes left being out from "meta warbands" is a issue of active balancing efforts to fix/balance 24man scale setups. Look at the amount of balance discussions topics discussed, minority of them would have much effect on largescale balance, most people are just looking to improve their efficiency in "muh 6man".
The campaign, that is the core of the Realm versus Realm warfare requires warbands to function. Yet so many classes have limited use in warbands... which itself is just a balance issue due to some classes being far better and some being left too far behind in largescale combat efficiency - this issue existed on live, received various band-aid "fixes" and eventually WAR went in 5 years from 1.1m subs to 0 subs and 2 dead servers. fugged up balance was one of the major issues contributing to the old game dying, and I can only hope that steps are take here to ensuring all classes will eventually feel welcome and useful in largescale Realm versus Realm warfare (that being the core of the endgame...).

Try to get into organized warbands and try to get to understand which classes work there and why, and which classes do not perform well there and why, and then hopefully adjust the less powerful classes so possibly every class becomes a valuable pick for a warband. Try to understand which morales work in warband rvr and which do not. Try playing in a premade warband with properly specced dedicated tanks and healers and dps players who know what they are doing, and maybe you will come to realization that TTK is extremely high when it comes to effective premade warbands.


Lack of warband-scale balancing killed Age of Reckoning, I can only hope same does not happen here.