Should 6man vs 6man matter in balance discussions?

[Tesq]

Any class should be viable in any part of the game which are just 2 sc and orvr (well pve too but that is easier to pull off).

PPl cannot be cutted out from 1 side of the game at the class pick just because they got wh/we. This is madness. Even more considering these classes have aoe options... Just they are utterly crap.

St should had been balanced for small scale 6vs6 also because even if aoe is the way to go in orvr st heal debuff and focus can be effective in orvr too so once balanced for 6vs6 it is "viable" anyway for orvr

Aoe should be balanced for orvr and not be effective in small scale as st (slayer id hello).
There are several way to do this (play with target cap both up and down is once).
The only form of pure aoe allowed in small scale should be an aoe pressure which is use to mask pre st focus (magus/engi dots mastery).

[Rida]

oof oof oof dfasdasdasvfdavdasbvdsbv

Could you be more specific whats on your mind m8?

[charlysixb]

oof oof oof dfasdasdasvfdavdasbvdsbv

Could you be more specific whats on your mind m8?

jajaja

[Arconnn]

oof oof oof dfasdasdasvfdavdasbvdsbv

Could you be more specific whats on your mind m8?

this and that and a bit of everything under the hat
bm;kbb\ds\kljsfasfklaskfraskrale hehe haha hoo hoo bla fukin bla ble
you got it, you nailed it, you got the look

[scatterthewinds]

No, then the bomb squad moves to them. You can farm pugs with this method, or fight organized groups. Only difference is how many you can kill. Against an organized wb it's all about positioning and who gets an early advantage. Against pugs you can farm hundreds. Back on live I think our record was about 250-300 (unique) kills in a minute or two, with only our 24 man wb. I know other guilds had similar experiences.

I don't think you realize just how strong bombing was on live. It's a bit weaker here due to some changes (especially disrupt) and generally lower coordination. But it's still the strongest tactic for wb scale.

This isn't live.

If bomb group approaches you, you kite. There's ALWAYS an opportunity for counter attack at the right moment.

They wont care if you kite. They go for objectives if played right. Also you will get magneted/rifted/staggered if you try to kite vs a good warband.

Who cares about the objective? Who even cares about the lock? The locking realm is always the side with more people anyways, there isnt an ounce of relation between who wins the zone and who has the better people. If you watched my video you wouldve seen us getitng pulled by magnet several times on top of BWs. No deaths. AOE spec jsut doesnt work vs good players.

[Danord]

I think LoB wiping full warbands from both Deep and Dry and Phalanx with our 10 man, on multiple occasions, shows there is some truth in the strength of ST in the ST v AoE debate.

I was sure i read LoB quit. I must have been mistaken Sry

[roadkillrobin]

This isn't live.

If bomb group approaches you, you kite. There's ALWAYS an opportunity for counter attack at the right moment.

They wont care if you kite. They go for objectives if played right. Also you will get magneted/rifted/staggered if you try to kite vs a good warband.

Who cares about the objective? Who even cares about the lock? The locking realm is always the side with more people anyways, there isnt an ounce of relation between who wins the zone and who has the better people. If you watched my video you wouldve seen us getitng pulled by magnet several times on top of BWs. No deaths. AOE spec jsut doesnt work vs good players.

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.

[Penril]

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.

Last time i checked, soccer didn't have AAO.

[roadkillrobin]

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.

Last time i checked, soccer didn't have AAO.

Neither did them if you watch the video. Order have it moast of the time.

[dur3al]

The most useful posts in the entire thread that it seems nobody bothered to read:

Well, the options (at least, the ones I can see) are:

1. Do not balance.
2. Balance for best possible play, which is relevant to very small % of players.
3. Balance for pug play, which will be relevant to most of the players. Which actually shouldn't be that hard- what is used in pug is mostly aoe (minimizing it to 1-2 skills per class + morals), + rest of class abilities which are used without class synergy. Then, assuming somebody comes with class synergy powerful enough to make a major impact, balance that.

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.

&&

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.

=====

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).

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.