Originally posted by Ginkeq My argument is that an MMORPG shouldn't balance their game for 1 on 1 combat. An MMORPG is "Massive", not Single Player. In a game like Diablo 2, sure it makes sense to balance classes, otherwise no one would play certain classes. However, in a game like WoW or Everquest, isn't the PvP going to occur with more than 1 person, given that most people are in guilds etc.? In EQ you wouldn't usually PvP without a group or a raid with you.
Ever heard of Flavor of the Month? Players don't generally flock to "underpowered" classes. I know it's hard to comprehend, but some players actually do face off 1v1 even in a big world PvP fight. Its just circumstance. Say it's 2v1 and the other guy kills your buddy. Say its 10 v 10 and every else is dead but you and one other player.
Believe it or not, some players even enjoy a 1v1 duel. Just because it isn't what you like to do, doesn't mean its not fun or a viable way to test ones class and skill.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Playing a MMO and knowing that I won't have a chance in a fight is the easiest way for me to quit. WAR being the most recent example. As a Zealot I really had no way to effectively kill anyone unless they were about to die anyway, even though the class description said I should be able to and the developers specifically said EVERYONE could kill everyone. They lied. I quit. I won't play a MMO where I need to be baby sat. DAOC was the same(first 5 months). As an Armsman I had NO CHANCE to kill anyone unless it was a zerg and I was just hitting the weakest target. No CC. No counters. No way to defend myself. I was just a walking target. A battering ram to smack doors for a 1/2 hr, then get AOE'd down in a few seconds. LAME. Quit.
In WOW, playing a Shaman, I knew I could kill anyone and everyone could kill me if they knew how to play. Certain classes were tougher than others, but NO ONE was unkillable. I played a Warrior and a Mage for a time and I never felt I was god-like or pathetic and weak. It was fun.
1 vs 1 is the ONLY way to balance a game. If its balanced 1 on 1 its OBVIOUSLY balanced in groups since everyone can kill anyone. 6 against 6 people who can all kill one another is balance. 100 vs 100 people who can all kill each other is balance. How is it not? Because you say so or because you don't "think" it is? Thats irrelevant. Numbers don't lie.
PVP class balance does not make sense... encourages zerging.... gives players no reason to work as groups...
To get folks to work as groups, they must "need" one another. The Warrior needs the healer to keep standing, and the healer needs to warrior to keep from getting pounded into the ground.
No healers near by or online, then the player playing the Warrior, cant play.
See how that mechanics fail?
Yeah, an MMORPG without players fail, what a bad concept. So I guess your idea is to balance MMORPGs for single player-players? Lol
PVP class balance does not make sense... encourages zerging.... gives players no reason to work as groups... To get folks to work as groups, they must "need" one another. The Warrior needs the healer to keep standing, and the healer needs to warrior to keep from getting pounded into the ground.
This post is complete nonsense.
A. The value of zerging is dependant on whether PVP is instanced or not. A secondary factor is the distribution and game mechanics of important objectives. Whether or not 1v1 class balance exists, 2 players are going to stomp 1 player in world PVP.
B. The value of teamwork (ie how much players "need" each other) is dependant on skill design. Whether or not 1v1 class balance exists, if the game has no group-benefit skills (heals, auras, buffs) then you don't "need" teammates. But as soon as you put those things in, teamwork becomes very important because a team stacking the right group buffs and healing will obviously beat one which doesn't.
All 1v1 class balance impacts is the amount of dev time dedicated to other aspects of the game. It has minimal impact on other facets of the game, so long as group balance is prioritized over 1v1 balance.
(It's bizarre that you even tried to claim class balance encourages zerging (grouping) and discourages grouping. )
Are you kidding? Bizarre to claim class balance discourages grouping?
If a warrior needs a cleric to stay alive, they will PvP in groups. If a warrior can run around and solo anyone, they can go PvP by themselves. So making a class able to kill any other class encourages solo-play PvP.
Games like EQ had more group PvP, because people needed certain classes in order to PvP effectively. A rogue, monk, or warrior going into a zone by themselves would be really dangerous and stupid in EQ. They would almost always need to bring healers. Contrast that to WoW where it encourages solo PvP and PvP inside of your pointless 2v2 arenas.
Why should the fate of a server be dependent on stupid and pointless 1v1 battles? It should be determined by large scale Guild vs Guild PvP fighting over PvE zones. That is why balancing for 1 on 1 is stupid. Look how shitty WoW is with their "balanced" PvP. Paladins that nuke, Priests that DOT, Druids that do rogue DPS, etc. They gave away every ability to every class just so their PvP system would work. So now every class is balanced, but there isn't really a distinction between many classes anymore. They balance their games, and they end up blurring the distinctions between each class. What happened to older MMORPGs where classes were more well defined? Really, why should my paladin be able to do rogue or warrior like DPS by switching my talent tree around? Shouldn't that be determined when I make the character? It's just dumb. And you talk about Good PvP, where does Good PvP occur? In WoW there is no Good PvP, it all takes place in staged instances, fighting people who aren't even on your own server. It's closer to Diablo 2 in terms of its PvP system than another MMORPG.
Really, the way they "balance" PvP in WoW is by giving every class the ability to kill any other class very quickly. A lot of burst DPS to hide the fact that the game isn't really balanced for PvP at all. It's just that you have the ability to instant kill people with every class that you don't notice the fact that it's unbalanced to begin with. My paladin can burn down certain classes, but that doesn't mean that it is balanced. My paladin would need to have a certain talent specialization to begin with. And in the case of WoWs shitty arenas, what happens when you just get matched with people who have talent specs with an advantage? How is that balanced? It isn't. Fact is, arena PvP is stupid and unbalanced, just like BG PvP. I guess it makes sense to "Balance" PvP in WoW though, because you never have more than 2v2 PvP in that pathetic excuse of an MMO. Really, PvP is reduced to instances, small scale PvP where it has to be more balanced than other MMORPGs would. In Everquest, class balance didn't matter, because PvP always occurred on a large scale (Important PvP, not the meaningless bullshit in current MMORPGs where you 1v1 in random instances that don't affect anything on your server). So the designers didn't have to do stupid shit like "Paladin can't kill other Paladin, lets give Paladins burn/DD/DPS abilities" which is exactly how WoWs PvP system is.
why is 1v1 "stupid and pointless"? because you say so? in my opinion a balanced 1v1 is the purest form of player-versus-player action, no external influences, same chances and skills available. whoever wins, we all know was the best.
zerg battles are "stupid and pointless", in the end they invariably tip to "whoever has more people/ranged nukers/healers" side.
In zerg battles usually what you do is "stupid and pointless",a drop in the ocean. you can be the best player ever and you can get focused and go down within miliseconds without time to even engage in combat. or you could be an absolute noob and still get the lucky killing blow on 7 guys....
"the game is not balanced 1v1, but in large scale" is dev's way to say "we are dumb, our own game overwhelms us and we are physically unable to balance the moster we created, so we have to let you players find balance yourself or sod off"
A 1v1 means you are fighting over something that isn't really important at all. A 50 vs 50 means you are fighting over something important. Does the concept of epicness mean anything to you? You can really find a 1v1 anywhere you go. But to get large scale battles is fun (as long as its not instanced crap like WoW / AV)
1v1 is same chances / skills? How is that? Even if they are the same class, one person might have better gear, more levels, a better talent specialization. It's not balanced for 1v1 in the first place.
Who cares if there are zerg battles? Isn't it fair to have open world PvP, why do you have to have artificial limits on the amount of people involved in a PvP battle that occurs within your own server? If my guild fights another guild, then the guild with more power should win, even if my guild is outnumbered and loses because we are outnumbered, that is how MMORPGs should be. No more of artificial bullshit rules.
Your quote is wrong too. Why should they balance on a class vs class basis? My cleric can't kill a warrior? Solution : Give clerics nukes and damage over time spells. They cheapen the classes, give them abilities they should not have.
Large scale PvP is just the most natural form of PvP, they don't need to balance PvP when you have 50-100 people fighting each other at a time.
Originally posted by Ginkeq My argument is that an MMORPG shouldn't balance their game for 1 on 1 combat. An MMORPG is "Massive", not Single Player. In a game like Diablo 2, sure it makes sense to balance classes, otherwise no one would play certain classes. However, in a game like WoW or Everquest, isn't the PvP going to occur with more than 1 person, given that most people are in guilds etc.? In EQ you wouldn't usually PvP without a group or a raid with you.
Ever heard of Flavor of the Month? Players don't generally flock to "underpowered" classes. I know it's hard to comprehend, but some players actually do face off 1v1 even in a big world PvP fight. Its just circumstance. Say it's 2v1 and the other guy kills your buddy. Say its 10 v 10 and every else is dead but you and one other player.
Believe it or not, some players even enjoy a 1v1 duel. Just because it isn't what you like to do, doesn't mean its not fun or a viable way to test ones class and skill.
There are no underpowered classes in large scale PvP. If it is underpowered in PvP, then it's a worthless PvE class, no one would play the class and the company would remove it from the game.
Really, large scale PvP means people will play what class they would normally play in PvE. And in PvP, you would use your normal PvE group for PvP. Sure, a Warrior may not be able to solo anything, but given good heals and buffs, they can do serious damage. People aren't just going to pick an overpowered PvP class unless PvP is all the game has to offer at the endgame. In EQ where you have both PVE and PVP, people will play their normal classes for both roles.
But in shit games like WoW, people just pick good 2v2 or 5v5 classes. Or they will re-specialize their character every time they want to do arenas, because the game sucks and is so heavily reliant on "counter classes" in order for their PvP to work. That is the problem with WoW PVP though, it's all counter classes. It's like Diablo 2. Your Barbarian sucks vs an Amazon? Make a new class. WoW is no different than D2 because it forces people to pick a counter class vs whoever is beating the.
In games like EQ, you don't have to reroll, because PvP there is balanced and works on a large scale. It's not this 2v2 bullshit where certain combos work and certain combos dont work.
Playing a MMO and knowing that I won't have a chance in a fight is the easiest way for me to quit. WAR being the most recent example. As a Zealot I really had no way to effectively kill anyone unless they were about to die anyway, even though the class description said I should be able to and the developers specifically said EVERYONE could kill everyone. They lied. I quit. I won't play a MMO where I need to be baby sat. DAOC was the same(first 5 months). As an Armsman I had NO CHANCE to kill anyone unless it was a zerg and I was just hitting the weakest target. No CC. No counters. No way to defend myself. I was just a walking target. A battering ram to smack doors for a 1/2 hr, then get AOE'd down in a few seconds. LAME. Quit. In WOW, playing a Shaman, I knew I could kill anyone and everyone could kill me if they knew how to play. Certain classes were tougher than others, but NO ONE was unkillable. I played a Warrior and a Mage for a time and I never felt I was god-like or pathetic and weak. It was fun. 1 vs 1 is the ONLY way to balance a game. If its balanced 1 on 1 its OBVIOUSLY balanced in groups since everyone can kill anyone. 6 against 6 people who can all kill one another is balance. 100 vs 100 people who can all kill each other is balance. How is it not? Because you say so or because you don't "think" it is? Thats irrelevant. Numbers don't lie.
Euhm they never said that. They said that they have created a balance ment for grouping not for soloing. Tank > melee dps > caster > Tank main healers/buffers (zaelot and runepriest) aren't even in that circle. They are ment to support the other classes. And yes if you have a bad group in a scenario you will lose. Thats why partying exists. Create a good balanced group outside and you'll win easy. But yea most people don't seem to understand the concept of a MMORPG ( MASS MULTIPLAYER online roleplaying game)
seriously people that love 1vs1 pvp ... go play a singleplayer game or a fps or whatever.
And in the case of WoWs shitty arenas, what happens when you just get matched with people who have talent specs with an advantage? How is that balanced? It isn't.
Fact is, arena PvP is stupid and unbalanced, just like BG PvP.
I guess it makes sense to "Balance" PvP in WoW though, because you never have more than 2v2 PvP in that pathetic excuse of an MMO. Really, PvP is reduced to instances, small scale PvP where it has to be more balanced than other MMORPGs would.
HAHA NERD RAGE!
I guess we know who couldn't get past 1400 arenas ? Fact is WoW is really the only game with an arena system, so you can just go to a number of other games that offer open pvp. Problem most people have with WoW arenas is that its just to competitive and takes a lot of skill. It's not about lets bring a bigger zerg = win like most open pvp games. Anyone that denies how competitive WoW arenas are; please find another mmo that has tournaments/contests with big grand prizes to the winning teams.
WoW arenas are focused on 3v3 and 5v5's now also. I'm sure the ideas of these came from classic fps games like counter strike which was also extremely competitive and took a lot of skill and also had a lot of tournaments and leagues.
When you look at WoW arena teams at 3v3 and 5v5 brackets there are a ton of variety, there are no OP teams. 2v2 arenas in WoW are practically meaningless now because blizzard finally realized that people just chose Fotm classes for 2v2.
Playing a MMO and knowing that I won't have a chance in a fight is the easiest way for me to quit. WAR being the most recent example. As a Zealot I really had no way to effectively kill anyone unless they were about to die anyway, even though the class description said I should be able to and the developers specifically said EVERYONE could kill everyone. They lied. I quit. I won't play a MMO where I need to be baby sat. DAOC was the same(first 5 months). As an Armsman I had NO CHANCE to kill anyone unless it was a zerg and I was just hitting the weakest target. No CC. No counters. No way to defend myself. I was just a walking target. A battering ram to smack doors for a 1/2 hr, then get AOE'd down in a few seconds. LAME. Quit. In WOW, playing a Shaman, I knew I could kill anyone and everyone could kill me if they knew how to play. Certain classes were tougher than others, but NO ONE was unkillable. I played a Warrior and a Mage for a time and I never felt I was god-like or pathetic and weak. It was fun. 1 vs 1 is the ONLY way to balance a game. If its balanced 1 on 1 its OBVIOUSLY balanced in groups since everyone can kill anyone. 6 against 6 people who can all kill one another is balance. 100 vs 100 people who can all kill each other is balance. How is it not? Because you say so or because you don't "think" it is? Thats irrelevant. Numbers don't lie.
Maybe because WAR sucks? They called their game PVP but it was nothing more than a carebear PvP game. It wasn't a real game for PvP, it's just a piece of shit game they labeled as "PVP" when in fact it wasn't.
You whine about WAR, but maybe you quit because the game sucked? Really, many people played MMORPGs where their class couldn't kill anything at all in PvP, but they were still vital for PvP. In EQ, clerics can't kill anything, but without them your raid group won't really survive without them.
These games like WAR and WoW try to balance on a small scale, by giving having certain classes counter other classes. Games like EQ didn't need that because PvP was always on a large scale. You don't determine what class you play by "how good is this at PvP vs class X."
You just have a single player mindset, that is the problem. You've probably never played a game where you PvP with more than a 5v5.. The games with open PvP with lots of people are always balanced, and they dont have to give classes abilities they shouldn't have in the first place. They made every class capable of taking on any role, just so their shitty PvP system would work.
And in the case of WoWs shitty arenas, what happens when you just get matched with people who have talent specs with an advantage? How is that balanced? It isn't.
Fact is, arena PvP is stupid and unbalanced, just like BG PvP.
I guess it makes sense to "Balance" PvP in WoW though, because you never have more than 2v2 PvP in that pathetic excuse of an MMO. Really, PvP is reduced to instances, small scale PvP where it has to be more balanced than other MMORPGs would.
HAHA NERD RAGE!
I guess we know who couldn't get past 1400 arenas ? Fact is WoW is really the only game with an arena system, so you can just go to a number of other games that offer open pvp. Problem most people have with WoW arenas is that its just to competitive and takes a lot of skill. It's not about lets bring a bigger zerg = win like most open pvp games. Anyone that denies how competitive WoW arenas are; please find another mmo that has tournaments/contests with big grand prizes to the winning teams.
WoW arenas are focused on 3v3 and 5v5's now also. I'm sure the ideas of these came from classic fps games like counter strike which was also extremely competitive and took a lot of skill and also had a lot of tournaments and leagues.
My rating was quite high when I played, I just never found farming 2v2 Arenas any fun I guess. I mean, killing people for no reason does get old after a while.
Other games don't really offer Open PvP, it's really pathetic. They'll try to instance or have special PvP areas, or they call their game a "PvP" game and they eliminate PvP. There are no good Open PvP games.
I just find it pointless though, the whole Arena System. Those people you fight with aren't on your server. They are random people. They don't influence your server at all. I like fighting people on my own server, in zones on my server, and when guilds fight each other for it to have an influence on the server and not be a random event in an instance.
The issue isn't that it isn't competitive, but that it's staged, and meaningless.. PvP was better when it was integrated with the PvE content of MMORPGs. Now everything is instanced anymore, and they've made PvP meaningless by instancing PvE and PvP.
PVP class balance does not make sense... encourages zerging.... gives players no reason to work as groups...
To get folks to work as groups, they must "need" one another. The Warrior needs the healer to keep standing, and the healer needs to warrior to keep from getting pounded into the ground.
No healers near by or online, then the player playing the Warrior, cant play.
See how that mechanics fail?
Yeah, an MMORPG without players fail, what a bad concept. So I guess your idea is to balance MMORPGs for single player-players? Lol
tro44 pretty explicitly stated "nearby or online".
I suppose you play some mythical MMORPG where every single second you're online you're surrounded by every class of player you could want to help you out in group PVP. Or maybe, just maybe, there are times when you're not in a group and there aren't people around to join up with you.
Maybe there's even been a time where you got into a 1v1 in world PVP with someone?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
PVP class balance does not make sense... encourages zerging.... gives players no reason to work as groups... To get folks to work as groups, they must "need" one another. The Warrior needs the healer to keep standing, and the healer needs to warrior to keep from getting pounded into the ground.
This post is complete nonsense.
A. The value of zerging is dependant on whether PVP is instanced or not. A secondary factor is the distribution and game mechanics of important objectives. Whether or not 1v1 class balance exists, 2 players are going to stomp 1 player in world PVP.
B. The value of teamwork (ie how much players "need" each other) is dependant on skill design. Whether or not 1v1 class balance exists, if the game has no group-benefit skills (heals, auras, buffs) then you don't "need" teammates. But as soon as you put those things in, teamwork becomes very important because a team stacking the right group buffs and healing will obviously beat one which doesn't.
All 1v1 class balance impacts is the amount of dev time dedicated to other aspects of the game. It has minimal impact on other facets of the game, so long as group balance is prioritized over 1v1 balance.
(It's bizarre that you even tried to claim class balance encourages zerging (grouping) and discourages grouping. )
Are you kidding? Bizarre to claim class balance discourages grouping?
If a warrior needs a cleric to stay alive, they will PvP in groups. If a warrior can run around and solo anyone, they can go PvP by themselves. So making a class able to kill any other class encourages solo-play PvP.
Games like EQ had more group PvP, because people needed certain classes in order to PvP effectively. A rogue, monk, or warrior going into a zone by themselves would be really dangerous and stupid in EQ. They would almost always need to bring healers. Contrast that to WoW where it encourages solo PvP and PvP inside of your pointless 2v2 arenas.
1. Yes, it's bizarre. You claimed class counters both encourage and discourage grouping. Well which is it?!
2. If a warrior has an fair chance against anyone 1v1, yeah he'll run around. Until he meets a 1v2 fight and dies. At which point he'll find a buddy -- and possibly find a buddy to PVP with every time afterwards.
If no buddies are around, he also has the option to run out and find some 1v1 fights. If the game is designed so that he can't do crap without someone else, he doesn't have that option and the game dictates to him how to play, restricting his player freedom.
Again, I don't know what game you're playing where there are group members online, available, nearby in the game world, and playing the right class 24/7. Your argument seems to have an abstract theoretical angle with little grounding in the realities of gaming.
3. A huge reason to group already exists. The warrior joins with a paladin. The warrior's HP shout now increase the health of two players instead of one. The group is more than the sum of its parts. So using the argument "class counters encourage players to group" is redundant and unnecessarily restricts player freedom, while making combat more shallow in the process.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
<p>This has been a long time issues on games that promote pvp in any type. Make each class more balanced and survivable. Or else the servers that allow open PVP will push out the the less PVP classes. Making everyong one of the uber pvp classes. </p> <p> </p> <p> This balances goes in allot of ways. There was one game i was in where they made the clerics more playable, and they made them where they did not have to group anymore so they did not and whre one of the highest on the pvp food chain. Then they nerfed them and now they can barely even solo and another class become the top. </p> <p> </p> <p> I dont live to PVP at all and play games where you can disble that 'feature'. But I do play EVE now you want to know a broken PVP system... There is no balance there, biger your ship, beter you lluck at pvp. There is very little skill at it, it all game skills and equipment and not player skills. You have the money you have the power </p> <p> </p> <p> I have played WOW, Everquest I and II, Camolot, Lord of The Rings, Deiblo..., City of Heros, Eve, DDO, and many others that have fallen to the way sides. </p> <p> </p> <p> I like seeing balances content for Solo and groups, and leting the PVP be the players choice. All the class classes should have a purpose in the world they play in. Some features that no other class can have that make you want to have them in a group. Or if they game system allows you to muticlass, allow you to lessen your abilities to pick up the skills, but still should make it so the specialist are needed also not that all generalist can do all the jobs the specialist can do </p> <p> </p>
I think the idea of general pvp balance is fine, but the excessive way WoW continually creates abilities to counter abilities they already added somewhat excessive.
It is a difficult task balancing classes for pvp. Another problem is you can't balance too much like WoW did, otherwise the community will start getting spoiled, and whining when they can't kill a particular class. Personally, I think it will be easier to have a game in which one toon can dabble in w/e class. Then class balance won't be much of an issue.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed: And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!" ~Lord George Gordon Byron
Seriously OP; what is your problem with WoW...? Don't tell us you are STILL playing it? You make one thread after the other where your sole purpose seem to bash WoW. I really do not understand why you doing this to yourself... Nor to this forum.
Whatever you say, it is WoW you are bashing, not the concept of PvP class balancing. Do you not understand that in a PvP MMO classes need be balanced PvP wise. And sorry if I am spoiling anything; WoW is a PvP game, with a great PVE content. As long as I can remember, Blizzard has been balancing the classes towards PvP; Started with the Paladin, as this was a kickass class at release, just as in the lore.
Comments
Ever heard of Flavor of the Month? Players don't generally flock to "underpowered" classes. I know it's hard to comprehend, but some players actually do face off 1v1 even in a big world PvP fight. Its just circumstance. Say it's 2v1 and the other guy kills your buddy. Say its 10 v 10 and every else is dead but you and one other player.
Believe it or not, some players even enjoy a 1v1 duel. Just because it isn't what you like to do, doesn't mean its not fun or a viable way to test ones class and skill.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Playing a MMO and knowing that I won't have a chance in a fight is the easiest way for me to quit. WAR being the most recent example. As a Zealot I really had no way to effectively kill anyone unless they were about to die anyway, even though the class description said I should be able to and the developers specifically said EVERYONE could kill everyone. They lied. I quit. I won't play a MMO where I need to be baby sat. DAOC was the same(first 5 months). As an Armsman I had NO CHANCE to kill anyone unless it was a zerg and I was just hitting the weakest target. No CC. No counters. No way to defend myself. I was just a walking target. A battering ram to smack doors for a 1/2 hr, then get AOE'd down in a few seconds. LAME. Quit.
In WOW, playing a Shaman, I knew I could kill anyone and everyone could kill me if they knew how to play. Certain classes were tougher than others, but NO ONE was unkillable. I played a Warrior and a Mage for a time and I never felt I was god-like or pathetic and weak. It was fun.
1 vs 1 is the ONLY way to balance a game. If its balanced 1 on 1 its OBVIOUSLY balanced in groups since everyone can kill anyone. 6 against 6 people who can all kill one another is balance. 100 vs 100 people who can all kill each other is balance. How is it not? Because you say so or because you don't "think" it is? Thats irrelevant. Numbers don't lie.
No healers near by or online, then the player playing the Warrior, cant play.
See how that mechanics fail?
Yeah, an MMORPG without players fail, what a bad concept. So I guess your idea is to balance MMORPGs for single player-players? Lol
This post is complete nonsense.
A. The value of zerging is dependant on whether PVP is instanced or not. A secondary factor is the distribution and game mechanics of important objectives. Whether or not 1v1 class balance exists, 2 players are going to stomp 1 player in world PVP.
B. The value of teamwork (ie how much players "need" each other) is dependant on skill design. Whether or not 1v1 class balance exists, if the game has no group-benefit skills (heals, auras, buffs) then you don't "need" teammates. But as soon as you put those things in, teamwork becomes very important because a team stacking the right group buffs and healing will obviously beat one which doesn't.
All 1v1 class balance impacts is the amount of dev time dedicated to other aspects of the game. It has minimal impact on other facets of the game, so long as group balance is prioritized over 1v1 balance.
(It's bizarre that you even tried to claim class balance encourages zerging (grouping) and discourages grouping. )
Are you kidding? Bizarre to claim class balance discourages grouping?
If a warrior needs a cleric to stay alive, they will PvP in groups. If a warrior can run around and solo anyone, they can go PvP by themselves. So making a class able to kill any other class encourages solo-play PvP.
Games like EQ had more group PvP, because people needed certain classes in order to PvP effectively. A rogue, monk, or warrior going into a zone by themselves would be really dangerous and stupid in EQ. They would almost always need to bring healers. Contrast that to WoW where it encourages solo PvP and PvP inside of your pointless 2v2 arenas.
PvP is just something that requires a 2x2 Arena. It has ruined MMORPGs and the gameplay in General.
The sooner community and fun comes back into MMOs and a bit of quality and depth then we can all be happy.
________________________________________________________
Sorcery must persist, the future is the Citadel
why is 1v1 "stupid and pointless"? because you say so? in my opinion a balanced 1v1 is the purest form of player-versus-player action, no external influences, same chances and skills available. whoever wins, we all know was the best.
zerg battles are "stupid and pointless", in the end they invariably tip to "whoever has more people/ranged nukers/healers" side.
In zerg battles usually what you do is "stupid and pointless",a drop in the ocean. you can be the best player ever and you can get focused and go down within miliseconds without time to even engage in combat. or you could be an absolute noob and still get the lucky killing blow on 7 guys....
"the game is not balanced 1v1, but in large scale" is dev's way to say "we are dumb, our own game overwhelms us and we are physically unable to balance the moster we created, so we have to let you players find balance yourself or sod off"
A 1v1 means you are fighting over something that isn't really important at all. A 50 vs 50 means you are fighting over something important. Does the concept of epicness mean anything to you? You can really find a 1v1 anywhere you go. But to get large scale battles is fun (as long as its not instanced crap like WoW / AV)
1v1 is same chances / skills? How is that? Even if they are the same class, one person might have better gear, more levels, a better talent specialization. It's not balanced for 1v1 in the first place.
Who cares if there are zerg battles? Isn't it fair to have open world PvP, why do you have to have artificial limits on the amount of people involved in a PvP battle that occurs within your own server? If my guild fights another guild, then the guild with more power should win, even if my guild is outnumbered and loses because we are outnumbered, that is how MMORPGs should be. No more of artificial bullshit rules.
Your quote is wrong too. Why should they balance on a class vs class basis? My cleric can't kill a warrior? Solution : Give clerics nukes and damage over time spells. They cheapen the classes, give them abilities they should not have.
Large scale PvP is just the most natural form of PvP, they don't need to balance PvP when you have 50-100 people fighting each other at a time.
Ever heard of Flavor of the Month? Players don't generally flock to "underpowered" classes. I know it's hard to comprehend, but some players actually do face off 1v1 even in a big world PvP fight. Its just circumstance. Say it's 2v1 and the other guy kills your buddy. Say its 10 v 10 and every else is dead but you and one other player.
Believe it or not, some players even enjoy a 1v1 duel. Just because it isn't what you like to do, doesn't mean its not fun or a viable way to test ones class and skill.
There are no underpowered classes in large scale PvP. If it is underpowered in PvP, then it's a worthless PvE class, no one would play the class and the company would remove it from the game.
Really, large scale PvP means people will play what class they would normally play in PvE. And in PvP, you would use your normal PvE group for PvP. Sure, a Warrior may not be able to solo anything, but given good heals and buffs, they can do serious damage. People aren't just going to pick an overpowered PvP class unless PvP is all the game has to offer at the endgame. In EQ where you have both PVE and PVP, people will play their normal classes for both roles.
But in shit games like WoW, people just pick good 2v2 or 5v5 classes. Or they will re-specialize their character every time they want to do arenas, because the game sucks and is so heavily reliant on "counter classes" in order for their PvP to work. That is the problem with WoW PVP though, it's all counter classes. It's like Diablo 2. Your Barbarian sucks vs an Amazon? Make a new class. WoW is no different than D2 because it forces people to pick a counter class vs whoever is beating the.
In games like EQ, you don't have to reroll, because PvP there is balanced and works on a large scale. It's not this 2v2 bullshit where certain combos work and certain combos dont work.
Euhm they never said that. They said that they have created a balance ment for grouping not for soloing. Tank > melee dps > caster > Tank main healers/buffers (zaelot and runepriest) aren't even in that circle. They are ment to support the other classes. And yes if you have a bad group in a scenario you will lose. Thats why partying exists. Create a good balanced group outside and you'll win easy. But yea most people don't seem to understand the concept of a MMORPG ( MASS MULTIPLAYER online roleplaying game)
seriously people that love 1vs1 pvp ... go play a singleplayer game or a fps or whatever.
And in the case of WoWs shitty arenas, what happens when you just get matched with people who have talent specs with an advantage? How is that balanced? It isn't.
Fact is, arena PvP is stupid and unbalanced, just like BG PvP.
I guess it makes sense to "Balance" PvP in WoW though, because you never have more than 2v2 PvP in that pathetic excuse of an MMO. Really, PvP is reduced to instances, small scale PvP where it has to be more balanced than other MMORPGs would.
HAHA NERD RAGE!
I guess we know who couldn't get past 1400 arenas ? Fact is WoW is really the only game with an arena system, so you can just go to a number of other games that offer open pvp. Problem most people have with WoW arenas is that its just to competitive and takes a lot of skill. It's not about lets bring a bigger zerg = win like most open pvp games. Anyone that denies how competitive WoW arenas are; please find another mmo that has tournaments/contests with big grand prizes to the winning teams.
WoW arenas are focused on 3v3 and 5v5's now also. I'm sure the ideas of these came from classic fps games like counter strike which was also extremely competitive and took a lot of skill and also had a lot of tournaments and leagues.
When you look at WoW arena teams at 3v3 and 5v5 brackets there are a ton of variety, there are no OP teams. 2v2 arenas in WoW are practically meaningless now because blizzard finally realized that people just chose Fotm classes for 2v2.
Maybe because WAR sucks? They called their game PVP but it was nothing more than a carebear PvP game. It wasn't a real game for PvP, it's just a piece of shit game they labeled as "PVP" when in fact it wasn't.
You whine about WAR, but maybe you quit because the game sucked? Really, many people played MMORPGs where their class couldn't kill anything at all in PvP, but they were still vital for PvP. In EQ, clerics can't kill anything, but without them your raid group won't really survive without them.
These games like WAR and WoW try to balance on a small scale, by giving having certain classes counter other classes. Games like EQ didn't need that because PvP was always on a large scale. You don't determine what class you play by "how good is this at PvP vs class X."
You just have a single player mindset, that is the problem. You've probably never played a game where you PvP with more than a 5v5.. The games with open PvP with lots of people are always balanced, and they dont have to give classes abilities they shouldn't have in the first place. They made every class capable of taking on any role, just so their shitty PvP system would work.
And in the case of WoWs shitty arenas, what happens when you just get matched with people who have talent specs with an advantage? How is that balanced? It isn't.
Fact is, arena PvP is stupid and unbalanced, just like BG PvP.
I guess it makes sense to "Balance" PvP in WoW though, because you never have more than 2v2 PvP in that pathetic excuse of an MMO. Really, PvP is reduced to instances, small scale PvP where it has to be more balanced than other MMORPGs would.
HAHA NERD RAGE!
I guess we know who couldn't get past 1400 arenas ? Fact is WoW is really the only game with an arena system, so you can just go to a number of other games that offer open pvp. Problem most people have with WoW arenas is that its just to competitive and takes a lot of skill. It's not about lets bring a bigger zerg = win like most open pvp games. Anyone that denies how competitive WoW arenas are; please find another mmo that has tournaments/contests with big grand prizes to the winning teams.
WoW arenas are focused on 3v3 and 5v5's now also. I'm sure the ideas of these came from classic fps games like counter strike which was also extremely competitive and took a lot of skill and also had a lot of tournaments and leagues.
My rating was quite high when I played, I just never found farming 2v2 Arenas any fun I guess. I mean, killing people for no reason does get old after a while.
Other games don't really offer Open PvP, it's really pathetic. They'll try to instance or have special PvP areas, or they call their game a "PvP" game and they eliminate PvP. There are no good Open PvP games.
I just find it pointless though, the whole Arena System. Those people you fight with aren't on your server. They are random people. They don't influence your server at all. I like fighting people on my own server, in zones on my server, and when guilds fight each other for it to have an influence on the server and not be a random event in an instance.
The issue isn't that it isn't competitive, but that it's staged, and meaningless.. PvP was better when it was integrated with the PvE content of MMORPGs. Now everything is instanced anymore, and they've made PvP meaningless by instancing PvE and PvP.
No healers near by or online, then the player playing the Warrior, cant play.
See how that mechanics fail?
Yeah, an MMORPG without players fail, what a bad concept. So I guess your idea is to balance MMORPGs for single player-players? Lol
tro44 pretty explicitly stated "nearby or online".
I suppose you play some mythical MMORPG where every single second you're online you're surrounded by every class of player you could want to help you out in group PVP. Or maybe, just maybe, there are times when you're not in a group and there aren't people around to join up with you.
Maybe there's even been a time where you got into a 1v1 in world PVP with someone?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
This post is complete nonsense.
A. The value of zerging is dependant on whether PVP is instanced or not. A secondary factor is the distribution and game mechanics of important objectives. Whether or not 1v1 class balance exists, 2 players are going to stomp 1 player in world PVP.
B. The value of teamwork (ie how much players "need" each other) is dependant on skill design. Whether or not 1v1 class balance exists, if the game has no group-benefit skills (heals, auras, buffs) then you don't "need" teammates. But as soon as you put those things in, teamwork becomes very important because a team stacking the right group buffs and healing will obviously beat one which doesn't.
All 1v1 class balance impacts is the amount of dev time dedicated to other aspects of the game. It has minimal impact on other facets of the game, so long as group balance is prioritized over 1v1 balance.
(It's bizarre that you even tried to claim class balance encourages zerging (grouping) and discourages grouping. )
Are you kidding? Bizarre to claim class balance discourages grouping?
If a warrior needs a cleric to stay alive, they will PvP in groups. If a warrior can run around and solo anyone, they can go PvP by themselves. So making a class able to kill any other class encourages solo-play PvP.
Games like EQ had more group PvP, because people needed certain classes in order to PvP effectively. A rogue, monk, or warrior going into a zone by themselves would be really dangerous and stupid in EQ. They would almost always need to bring healers. Contrast that to WoW where it encourages solo PvP and PvP inside of your pointless 2v2 arenas.
1. Yes, it's bizarre. You claimed class counters both encourage and discourage grouping. Well which is it?!
2. If a warrior has an fair chance against anyone 1v1, yeah he'll run around. Until he meets a 1v2 fight and dies. At which point he'll find a buddy -- and possibly find a buddy to PVP with every time afterwards.
If no buddies are around, he also has the option to run out and find some 1v1 fights. If the game is designed so that he can't do crap without someone else, he doesn't have that option and the game dictates to him how to play, restricting his player freedom.
Again, I don't know what game you're playing where there are group members online, available, nearby in the game world, and playing the right class 24/7. Your argument seems to have an abstract theoretical angle with little grounding in the realities of gaming.
3. A huge reason to group already exists. The warrior joins with a paladin. The warrior's HP shout now increase the health of two players instead of one. The group is more than the sum of its parts. So using the argument "class counters encourage players to group" is redundant and unnecessarily restricts player freedom, while making combat more shallow in the process.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
<p>This has been a long time issues on games that promote pvp in any type. Make each class more balanced and survivable. Or else the servers that allow open PVP will push out the the less PVP classes. Making everyong one of the uber pvp classes. </p>
</p>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p> This balances goes in allot of ways. There was one game i was in where they made the clerics more playable, and they made them where they did not have to group anymore so they did not and whre one of the highest on the pvp food chain. Then they nerfed them and now they can barely even solo and another class become the top. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> I dont live to PVP at all and play games where you can disble that 'feature'. But I do play EVE now you want to know a broken PVP system... There is no balance there, biger your ship, beter you lluck at pvp. There is very little skill at it, it all game skills and equipment and not player skills. You have the money you have the power
<p> </p>
<p> I have played WOW, Everquest I and II, Camolot, Lord of The Rings, Deiblo..., City of Heros, Eve, DDO, and many others that have fallen to the way sides. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> I like seeing balances content for Solo and groups, and leting the PVP be the players choice. All the class classes should have a purpose in the world they play in. Some features that no other class can have that make you want to have them in a group. Or if they game system allows you to muticlass, allow you to lessen your abilities to pick up the skills, but still should make it so the specialist are needed also not that all generalist can do all the jobs the specialist can do
<p> </p>
I think the idea of general pvp balance is fine, but the excessive way WoW continually creates abilities to counter abilities they already added somewhat excessive.
It is a difficult task balancing classes for pvp. Another problem is you can't balance too much like WoW did, otherwise the community will start getting spoiled, and whining when they can't kill a particular class. Personally, I think it will be easier to have a game in which one toon can dabble in w/e class. Then class balance won't be much of an issue.
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"
~Lord George Gordon Byron
Seriously OP; what is your problem with WoW...? Don't tell us you are STILL playing it? You make one thread after the other where your sole purpose seem to bash WoW. I really do not understand why you doing this to yourself... Nor to this forum.
Whatever you say, it is WoW you are bashing, not the concept of PvP class balancing. Do you not understand that in a PvP MMO classes need be balanced PvP wise. And sorry if I am spoiling anything; WoW is a PvP game, with a great PVE content. As long as I can remember, Blizzard has been balancing the classes towards PvP; Started with the Paladin, as this was a kickass class at release, just as in the lore.
/bearhug
Make us care MORE about our faction & world pvp!