Return of Reckoning

I have seen that a lot of people state that balance in WAR designed around 6vs6 group play, but i can't quite understand how this should work, can someone explain it to me?

Originally then game in live was not designed around 6vs6 but things here seems get balanced (or seems there is the aim to balance stuff) around party vs party and not warbands vs warbands.

balancing 6vs6 is the beste way, because a warband basically consists of 4 groups a 6 and plays against another 4 groups a 6 players. so most assumptions can be derived from 6vs6 balancing.

so you can assume when 6vs6 is balanced higher multipliers will also be balanced.

Most skills or abilities aside from ones that only effect yourself or your target are group based (6 people). So like guard, group heal, auras, etc...

It makes sense to balance the game around 6 man groups, but that does not mean 6v6... just that classes should be able to work and be viable in the 6 man level. Because even in large scale fighting warbands are ideally just four 6 mans working together... there isn't really any mechanical benefit to being in warband besides allowing healers to out of party heal easier via the warband UI.

Jaycub wrote:Most skills or abilities aside from ones that only effect yourself or your target are group based (6 people). So like guard, group heal, auras, etc...

It makes sense to balance the game around 6 man groups, but that does not mean 6v6... just that classes should be able to work and be viable in the 6 man level. Because even in large scale fighting warbands are ideally just four 6 mans working together... there isn't really any mechanical benefit to being in warband besides allowing healers to out of party heal easier via the warband UI.

and aoe dmg. this is the biggest problem in XXvsXX. And thats where meta balancing needs to take place. (aka no stacking of AOE, limit target number of AOE etc.).

Tiggo wrote:
and aoe dmg. this is the biggest problem in XXvsXX. And thats where meta balancing needs to take place. (aka no stacking of AOE, limit target number of AOE etc.).

So Guildwars 2 all over again?

Shadowgurke wrote:

Tiggo wrote:
and aoe dmg. this is the biggest problem in XXvsXX. And thats where meta balancing needs to take place. (aka no stacking of AOE, limit target number of AOE etc.).

So Guildwars 2 all over again?

Please no.

Shadowgurke wrote:

Tiggo wrote:
and aoe dmg. this is the biggest problem in XXvsXX. And thats where meta balancing needs to take place. (aka no stacking of AOE, limit target number of AOE etc.).

So Guildwars 2 all over again?

no but stacking 10 aoe fields on top each other and instakilling everything is not what we want is it?

Tesq wrote:Originally then game in live was not designed around 6vs6 but things here seems get balanced (or seems there is the aim to balance stuff) around party vs party and not warbands vs warbands.

Let me use Genisaurus words from a different thread/post:

"Says who? Did Mark Jacobs fall out of the sky on angel wings and whisper that into your ear?"

Game was definitely not balanced around WB vs WB as you always claim (otherwise, WAR wouldn't have had 12v12 SCs). Mythic simply used the excuse of "WB vs WB" to cover their inability to balance the game. And worst part is some players actually believed them.

Tiggo wrote: no but stacking 10 aoe fields on top each other and instakilling everything is not what we want is it?

Aoe is the only way to kill significantly bigger numbers with coordination. Warhammer does have ways to push through aoe fields in the form of shieldwall or absorb morales. Although I agree that it is significantly easier to spam AoE than to make a coordinated push