In theory barebones class A should have a 50% chance of beating barebones class B. Then skill and gear would be the the deciding factor of the fight.

Games not designed around 1v1.

1v1 is irrelevent

In theory barebones class A should have a 50% chance of beating barebones class B. Then skill and gear would be the the deciding factor of the fight.

 

Who's theory is that?

 

No one ever agreed to that.

In theory barebones class A should have a 50% chance of beating barebones class B. Then skill and gear would be the the deciding factor of the fight.

 

 

I don't understand why people keep thinking about 1 v 1 this 1 v 1 that.

 

This is a team based game.

This is a team orientated game.

If you are not playing as a team.

You are not doing it correctly.

 

If you are assisting one another. Protecting your teammates / objectives together. Play your roles according to what a team should do. You are winning. Lose/win you are still doing a good job and will have a stronger chance of winning.

 

This X class should take out your X class 1 v 1 mentality is wrong for MMO's

 

The devs focus on balancing this game around team based game play. If they hotfixed this game every time someone felt their class was under powered in a 1 v 1 situation. Or to try and balance a 1v1 class fight......

You may as well not bring the game back online, because it'll never be balanced in that manner.

 

You are only going to find that kind of balance in a FPS. Where you both get the same load out and same guns

Pvp in this game is not based around 1vs1

 

/thread

balence in this game is based off of pve ;p

In theory barebones class A should have a 50% chance of beating barebones class B. Then skill and gear would be the the deciding factor of the fight.

 

 

People cry that skill and or gear should be the only determining factors, but that is a grave mistake. Ask any casino owner or professional sports league, who have billions invested. In PvP, look at ranked. Very few queue because they really don't want a game to be based on skill and or gear only. Skill as the only determining factor is fine for a tournament or for pve content, but not for ongoing pvp games. Because once a pecking order is established, the games are over. It only benefits a handful at the top. Games need random variables to keep people interested. Whether it's a roll of the dice, luck of the draw, a spin of the wheel, bounce of the ball. Professional sports leagues strive for parity, so that random variables keep the outcome in doubt. If the best team on paper always won, people would quit watching. The popularity of Casinos, by far the biggest games going, depend almost entirely on chance. People play even though they are well aware the overall odds are against them because of the element of chance.

Let's hope that one day mmo devs will consult someone who knows something about game theory and how to design games and work toward providing interesting random variables into their warzones and pvp instead of being mesmerized by the illusion that skill as the only determining factor makes for engaging pvp.

Edited December 7, 2013 by MotorCityMan

People who don't fully understand the game should never expect their opinion to be taken seriously.

Games not designed around 1v1.

 

Should be ! That would mean it's balanced.

Should be ! That would mean it's balanced.

 

Extremely common misconseption and completely false.

Should be ! That would mean it's balanced.

 

Good luck balancing 8 completely different classes around 1v1.

 

I look forward to reading how you would do it.

Extremely common misconseption and completely false.

 

Well that's one opinion. But in random warzones people frequently square off into 1v1 battles. Also random warzones by definition have random classes filling out a team so they need to be interchangeable to some degree. If a game pvp is going to be balanced around team play, then what is the composition of the teams? And then how will any balance be achieved with a random queue if specific roles aren't being filled?

 

So no, 1 vs 1 balance can't be dismissed out of hand.

Edited December 8, 2013 by MotorCityMan

Games not designed around 1v1.

 

Bingo

Extremely common misconseption and completely false.

Are you saying it's impossible?

 

C'mon. We've sequenced the human genome, put rovers on Mars, and have built a worldwide society that allows for goods and services to reach people in the most remote corners of the world. Not to mention instantaneous communication that makes both this communication and the game to which we are referring possible.

 

And game developers can't create a level playing field between 8 classes with their 3 specs and corresponding mirrors?

 

I vociferously and respectfully disagree.

Edited December 8, 2013 by RodneyMcNeely

Are you saying it's impossible?

 

C'mon. We've sequenced the human genome, put rovers on Mars, and have built a worldwide society that allows for goods and services to reach people in the most remote corners of the world. Not to mention instantaneous communication that makes both this communication and the game to which we are referring possible.

 

And game developers can't create a level playing field between 8 classes with their 3 specs and corresponding mirrors?

 

I vociferously and respectfully disagree.

 

okay oprah

Are you saying it's impossible?

 

C'mon. We've sequenced the human genome, put rovers on Mars, and have built a worldwide society that allows for goods and services to reach people in the most remote corners of the world. Not to mention instantaneous communication that makes both this communication and the game to which we are referring possible.

 

And game developers can't create a level playing field between 8 classes with their 3 specs and corresponding mirrors?

 

I vociferously and respectfully disagree.

 

It was already really obvious to the people trolling you right now, but I'll explain.

 

The reason you can't balance an 8v8 or 4v4 game around 1v1 is that there are more than just the two guys doing 1v1 in a 4v4 or 8v8.

 

HERPDERP

okay oprah

Don't even play like that. Oprah-girl can just fire you from life, you know?

so much hate for this guy hah

Games not designed around 1v1.

 

Then, why are there Arenas ?

Should be ! That would mean it's balanced.

 

not sure if trolling...

Technically, you can balance around 1v1 if you project the classes damage output and survivability against the damage output and survivability of the opposing class. It's not even that difficult to do but would require developers responsible for class balance to actually spend the bulk of their time playing each class against every other class.

games not designed around 1v1. it's designed around gates that force you to have to subscribe.. then a long, painful, spiteful, hateful gear grind to force you to stay subscribed for a long, long time. then just when you get your gear where you want it.. they add a new tier with an expansion, DLC or update so you have to begin anew.

 

then when you play any class other than a smash spec mara/sent they find whatever works with your class and nerf it or weaken it with further patches and updates.

 

then they refuse to have cross-server pvp que so you're stuck with the same 30 or 40 terrible solo players and rage quitters and the guys who know all about how you should be playing but are at the bottom of the leader boards when the wz ends.

They haven't balanced the team game worth a damn either, there are too many cases where specific compositions add up to be better than any two, three, or four other classes. (1+1 = 4, like a good operative healer and jugg tank guarding).

 

So you might as well balance 1v1 a bit better so that we can at least duel one another and hold tournaments.

If classes were designed 1v1, then they are NOT necessarily balanced for group, just look at smash or engineering. They get no penalties for hitting multiple targets with their aoe, only extra deeps.

 

If classes were designed 1v1 and only had single target skills, then all classes would be the same, and this game would be even crappier because it'd be too easy.