Two Chosen's

[peterthepan3]

How many players are doing RVR compared to 6v6.
How many players are doing scenarios compared to quing for 6v6.

RVR = competitive 12v12 upon which we can balance?
Gates of Ekrund with the level 32 DPS chosen called Morgurth and 5 DPS shamans = competitive 12v12 upon which we can balance?

K

[Bozzax]

No this is wrong obviously the devs intention was for three chosen groups (or 3xdok).

There are 9 auras and 3 covs all classes have ... exactly three specilization trees. There are 3 types of magic damage and if you add 1h + 2h you obviously get 3 which happens to bed num of archetypes and races per faction. Initially they wanted 3 factions but MJB himself (3 letters) explained there wasn't enpugh time for this.

Balance around 6v6 is bad since 3v3 is the real thing

This double chosen thread is just omg wrong.

[Panzerkasper]

The higher the number of players, the more of a joke it gets to talk about balance. The more numbers you get, the higher is the number of different class combinations. Trying to balance anything further then 6vs6 is a hopeless undertaking.

[roadkillrobin]

Yes you could actually fix 90% of the issues with this game just by increasing the HP pools by around 50% and make a role check quer for SC.
Premades vs random pugs and 2 sec TTK is clearly a ballance issue that makes people leave the game.
As for individual ballance you can still modify classes and skills to function ballanced weather you're in premade or not. But it's impossible to do this do this so those skills will function for both 2-3 dps/heals and 4-6 dps/heals at the same time. And it would be hell alot easier to do with 4 classes options vs 12 classes option aswell.

[Luth]

"We could actually fix 90% of the issues this game has with the introduction of -50% crit damage." - c&c lead dev @mythic entertainment

[Darosh]

In regards to the basis of balance:

It should be abundantly obvious as to why 6v6 is the basis of balance: extrapolation.

A group consists of six members - the implementation of mechanics and especially their limitations revolves around groups; buffing (targetcaps, [...]), cleansing and alike, (...).
With the latter being the case everything related to the purely statiscal side of things (averages [hps,dps,...], itemization, stat conversions, [...]) is invetiably dependent on a single-group based balance.
In other words, the only way to properly gauge/prevent/tune the extremes is to look at a group in a controlled environment first and then add additional factors (AoE [targetcaps, potency,...], morales [accessibility, traits, ...]) relevant to the situation to the equation, after the fact.

A warband consists of four groups; any other coordinated format consists of a set amount of groups after all - I'd argue that one could think about splitting balance according to said mechanical limitations; target caps and potency, but the majority of things (= everything but morales and AoE) would still have to be balanced around 6v6, one way or another.

One could save alot of time in regards to this debate and hint at combinatorial logic and basic probability theory otherwise...

For as long the mechanical limitations are not being changed - and even if that happens - balancing around any other format is mathematically speaking utter nonsense.

Abbd.: Not to mention the non-standardized set of variables. 'Perfect' balance as most envision it is simply not possible with the game design at hand.

[roadkillrobin]

With that logic then AoE bombing should also be viable for 6v6. Coz we're basing it for 6v6 right?

[Darosh]

With that logic then AoE bombing should also be viable for 6v6. Coz we're basing it for 6v6 right?

Hence "splitting balance according to mechanical limitations", but generally speaking: 'viability' the way you consider it doesn't matter when gauging the scope of things. Especially if there are variations of AoE bombing that can work out quite well regardless of the format you play in ~ a Slayer with WW bot can keep up ID on the entire opposing group and apply ridiculous amounts of pressure. A group running two Slayer can cycle SL whilst keeping up six (up to 12 if its gets all trololol) instances of ID across the board, add rampage to the mix... Sure it depends on the environment, a CQ environment will enable bombing even in 6v6.

Here again: non-standardized set of variables = impossible "balance".

Abbd.: Keep in mind there is no factual meta either, given the utter lack of competitive playerbase. A meta normally develops over time as the competitive playerbase evens out in terms of 'skill'; experience and general awareness/unterstanding of mechanics, over the course of a games lifetime. Thats why meta-shifts in competitive games only occur based on changes made to the core of a game if a game is being played long enough for the playerbase to grasp it.

[Panzerkasper]

... ~ a Slayer with WW bot can keep up ID on the entire opposing group and apply ridiculous amounts of Lag. ...

Let me correct that

[Aurandilaz]

Oh yeah, the Slayer "meta" from live... enemy WB might have have 5-10 slayers in it, all spamming ID... you could feel the lag moving towards you.
That "meta" being countered by mara "meta" where they would fish a midget after another from the pond of ID spamming midgets. And everyone ofc having a personal chosen/kotb and dok/wp to guard/heal them.
Back when the playerbase was still big enough to have a "meta".

Btw, when did the word "meta" even enter the discussions? Because I remember only discussions about FOTM and OP classes on WHA and Bioware forums, "meta" this and that seems relatively new.