while that is true they only choose the changes that are illogical and noob friendly. Games should listen to community feedback yes. However does that mean that the community is right no. They need experienced actual good pvp devs on the team in order to gauge proper balancing. You can tell most of them are below average
By all means, I hope AOC will be a great game. But from what I’ve seen so far…I doubt it
I think A2 will be live in 2023, not release.
I would balance around 3v3.
I think small scale pvp balance would translate to large scale pvp balance, but large scale pvp balance would not translate to small scale pvp. If the game was balanced around war, then healing and tanking/brusiers would be too powerful on the small scale.
I think you’re correct.
1 Like
Was starting to have doubts and I know theres YEARS worth of shine to put on it, but after they showed that small group actual gameplay, theres a working product in there and I cant see them not doing it in 2023, but we will see. #IAmNotAProphet
It doesn’t make sense to fight balance between PVP and PVE. Balance should scale based on your group size. So a 20v20 is just 4 units of 5v5. A war 50v50 is just 10 units of 5v5.
3v3 doesn’t scale into either OPR 20v20 or WAR 50v50 or Expeditions 5 players or upcoming raids which they said will be 20.
5v5 is where it’s at. Full Groups.
I know you casuals and solo players don’t like this but that is the practical reality of it at a fundamental level these games are made for grouping and have to be balanced that way.
1 Like
Balance in a game where the core concept of PVP is ZERG BATTLES.
Yeah never going to get balanced my dude.
I think the way the test things is they throw a bunch of Rabid Gerbils into a bag… each one has a Weapon name on their back… they leave them in there for a few days and when they open it up… Whatever Gerbil walks out in the weapon that will get nerfed into the ground for that month… they pretty much repeat this process tell you quit the game.
Agree.
Balancing based on a group only works if we all have access to a full group, which is not possible with random queues. They would need to implement role queues for that to work. Otherwise, pre-made groups with ideal compositions will always have the advantage, which is partially why we have 1000 to <200 ORPs.
I think balancing around the idea all builds can 1v1 each other would be better, and that’s how most pvp games are balanced. Some builds have advantages in certain situations, but, in general, different builds simply play different, but their win rates are roughly the same.
Its been like this since day 1, too.
Thats why the people in dedicated 5 mans are
so much exponentially ahead of the rest of the
playerbase.
Ya narc never grow out of his vanilla/BC hardcore players mentality. Kinda sad. Guy will forever be looking for that mmo promised land.
Everytime I hear him mention 10,000 hours in GW2…
10k hours in a single player game essentially since that games endgame content has been in disrepair for years now oof.
1 Like
Pvp in general nerf bows /musket also remove stagger on bow as well as the range.
This only works if you completely take the trinity out of PVE. You’d have to gut a healer so far and buff all the individual players self healing to a point that a healer isn’t neccessary. You can take any four non tank players and be good to go. Then the next argument is if you got rid of healers why not get rid of tanks? Before you know it there are no roles just random zergs in PVE content.
No thanks you. There are just as many if not more players who happily enjoy the trinity concept than those who don’t enjoy it. The ones that don’t tend to not have an MMORPG background and should stick to the games they came from instead of complaining about a cornerstone of MMORPGs.
I agree - and you can’t have access until cross server play is fleshed out and then again once roles can be declared in some way for pvp matches.
They have roles in Expedition group finder they could easily implement that in to PVP queus. Heck they don’t even nead folks to declare. You can discern objectively based on attributes and weapons what role a person is qued as.
That idea is like 20-30 years old at this point.
For now, OPR & War should be the scale until ags gets better at balance rotations.
1 vs 1 & 3 vs 3 are an add on to the game not the core. Open world (if players would actually create something like ppl did with WT’s) always had the potential big long massive laggy battles (that never happened for many reasons). Outside of that war is the primary tool for controlling a territory. Outpost rush is a battleground for practicing war without a risk (Turned into TDM by a biased scoreboard).
1 vs 1 scenarios in war & opr often are assassins which is their nature.
3 vs 3 is the direct cause of why healers have that god awful mechanic Line of Sight. There is nothing fun, rewarding, or even tactical about being completely being denied a cast because the target’s feet are covered ever so slightly but the entire body is CLEAR AS DAY.
Outside of that, the combat ratio is set to pve. The abilities aren’t scaled for pvp anyway. Which is probably a much greater nuisance than the weapons themselves. The weapons themselves are operating perfectly fine in what they were build for, but the ratio they are set to is supporting two very different worlds.
Balance should be scaled from compare & contrasting multiple aspects.
War>=Opr < - > Average <= Good < - > weapon popularity < - > Weapon Raw Base Data>=Max attribute data.
I want to include OWpvp but it’s always a ghost town.
Granted ags could solve the entirety of OutpostShootingGallery with a simple change to the scoreboard valuing objectives, lowering kill/damage point generation, & removing rewards from the losing team or just granting a pity 100 coin as a deterrent.
PvP is scrambled in general with no real structure to support any kind of meaningful balance to begin with. The dev team isn’t consistent on balance update either which further adds to the underlying problems.
1 vs 1 & 3 vs 3 even up to 5 vs 5 can be ratio’d to a Raw format which would leave balancing for war, opr, & world very much alone. A raw format is disabling GS, attributes, perks & allowing the weapons to operate at base vs base. Which then adds (Raw) combat data to the devs pool allowing to measure the base to then contrast it to the max. This also provides raw combat data on what works with & against what. Afterwards using the raw data to help tweak not kratos murder nerf or Odin buff the crap out of something.
The way balance is gauged is actually pretty involved, and includes the use of extensive, sophisticated software telemetry tools that can provide a spectacular amount of data for analysis.
The data is then filtered to allow the developers to determine how many times someone gets killed by a weapon and they rage then that one needs nerfed. That is the forum balance on weapons.
1 Like
If we look at balancing in the smallest squad based model currently its at least a happy medium between 1v1 and operating in groups of 5. 3v3 is probably the best way to approach this topic I think. So choosing the arena is probably the best choice but not limited to opr and territory wars because there is enough of a blind spot between weapon selections when building a squad to think tactically. You are given 30 at least seconds to switch weapons for whats in your inventory to change your build into what ever you like and revise your personal stats. Which is more than enough time to do all of that if your paying attention. So entering in with only one set of armor and one weapon build is akin to eating an entire tube of glue stick only forgivable upon one’s first three matches before someone should probably talk to you about tactical team building.
A well balanced team would nominally have a healer, a dps and a tank with no real focus on specializing in anything particular.
An aggressive team would have a tank and two dps
And a defensive team would have a healer and two dps.
A hyper aggressive team would have all dps and would be vulnerable to aoe builds.
A hyper defensive team would have all tanks and vulnerable to fast dps types
And a turtle team would have tanky healers. Which is absolutely vulnerable to ranger types.
Its up to the group to decide which way you want to play but none of which are bad tactics.
The only model that stands out in the game is 1v1 but even so you can essentially play rock paper scissors with weapons that synergize with the armor you wear. To play a juxtoposing effect on the build to fight on equal terms with a player that also has a mix build. Switching off from one weapon to make use of the special attacks but the light and heavy attacks are absolutely essential for 1v1 in terms of gaining an upper hand. And people fail or refuse to see that value.
In plain terms, if your trying to fight a dps choose something equally fast or absolutely defensive like sword and tower shield or a good crowd controller like the spear and if they choose to switch to healer, then you switch to something thats good against the healer. Im a healer and I cant fight against a ranger type so i would suggest a blunderbus, bow or musket not a fire staff though thats not a good way fight a healer.
I applaud people for wanting to stay with their favorite weapons but hope they understand that they will fight a mostly an up hill battle.