1 VS 1 really?

After thinking about this for a long time, I asked myself why would Steven early on declare they won't balance 1 vs 1? It seems odd stating that when we know already from experience that in any mmropg the developers always start meddling into class metas by tweaking their abilities and so forth.

Before you know it, the community will be in up and arms about what's being Nerf and what's getting a buff? After investing for a year or two and find out that your class that your playing will either get Nerf or get a buff will create other players to respond? We've all been on this road before, so you might as well say class balance is just a natural part of an mmorpg development and we will strive to make it fair for everyone.

Because as soon as you start "balancing" class abilities, the 1 vs 1 argument falls apart because you might discover that your class might of gained a buff and now it's viable in combat whether it's 1 vs 1 or in group combat? Also, with the introduction of new gear sets that might make it into the game via expansions, you might find something that will compliment your abilities which you didn't have before and make your class a better competitor.

Also, when everyone reaches end game and are gearing themselves up to the best of what the game can offer regardless of metas, it's a very fine margin of a certain class being good only in groups but not 1 vs 1. From my experience, an mmorpg that I play, most players who have a good dual builds also are good in group PVP. And one of the reasons for that is because the game does not have specific gear for PVP vs PVE.

Another reason why people might start complaining is that a game like Ashes has open world PVP and arenas. So, does that mean the arenas will be limited for only group play like 2 vs 2 etc..? Also, the different PVP systems like siege and guild wars does not mean that you will always be in a group, you might end up defending yourself alone against another person when most of your buddies are resurrecting and on their way. Different scenarios can play out which will make your class equally important for group play and solo.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Caeryl

Not balancing for 1v1 literally only means they will not base their balancing decisions on any particular class being able to fight any other class.

If your Bard gets popped by a Rogue who caught them without buffs up, that doesn’t mean Bard is weak or Rogue is overpowered.

If your Mage kites out a Tank and kills them, that doesn’t mean Mage needs less CC or Tank needs more gap closers.

Classes will have distinct and intended weaknesses. Classes will have distinct and intended strengths. That’s what it means to not balance around 1v1s.

As for “what if I’m alone”, well if the matchup is bad for you then you probably lose unless you outskill or outlevel the other player. If the matchup is good for you, then you probably win if the person doesn’t outskill or outlevel you. Ashes isn’t particularly a solo-friendly game, if you’ve noticed.

Demonhunter1

That's a problem

Caeryl wrote: »

Not balancing for 1v1 literally only means they will not base their balancing decisions on any particular class being able to fight any other class.

If your Bard gets popped by a Rogue who caught them without buffs up, that doesn’t mean Bard is weak or Rogue is overpowered.

If your Mage kites out a Tank and kills them, that doesn’t mean Mage needs less CC or Tank needs more gap closers.

Classes will have distinct and intended weaknesses. Classes will have distinct and intended strengths. That’s what it means to not balance around 1v1s.

As for “what if I’m alone”, well if the matchup is bad for you then you probably lose unless you outskill or outlevel the other player. If the matchup is good for you, then you probably win if the person doesn’t outskill or outlevel you. Ashes isn’t particularly a solo-friendly game, if you’ve noticed.

There are lots of assumptions there, overtime if they start balancing classes having in mind only for group game play then they will fall into the trap of making some classes better in 1 vs 1 un-intentionally. A good developer should have in mind for both types of gameplay.

For example, if the community demands to buff the gap closing and damage of a rogue because in a group setting the mages always easily nuke the rogues 1st and have no chance then that will also buff the rogue for 1 vs 1 because the game doesn't distinguish if your playing as a group or not?

Also, you mention that i noticed that ashes isn't particularly solo-friendly game and yet there is 1 vs 1 scenarios in any mmorpg you play. And there isn't alot of combat footage yet for the mmorpg and lots can change between now and then.

Songcaller

They have to say they wont balance around 1vs1 because of the Hard Counters. You can't balance 1vs1 with Hard Counters because with equal balance Hard Counters dont exist. Of course, a 1vs1 same class will have some balance but even then two people will build the same class differently.

CaptnChuck

@valerian

That's why you have secondary classes, diff armor types and sets, gear stats, and passives.

If you're playing a mage, why not take tank or fighter as your secondary to give you some defense to counteract rogue's burst dmg? You could even take cleric and focus on healing back your lost hp.

You could also wear heavy or medium armor, instead of light or cloth armor. Heavy armor is strong against physical damage and gives you more hp. This further reduces the burst potential of a rogue. (No info on medium armor yet)

You have 16 gear slots, use them wisely. There might be set bonuses that give you defensive/pseudo defensive effects.

Crafters that craft gear for you can determine the stats for that gear. Why not sacrifice some magic damage for some extra evasion/resistances?

And finally, we also have passive skills. You can invest skill points that you gain from leveling up into the following passive skills: Block, cloth armor, elemental, heavy armor, light armor, mana pool, medium armor and ranged passive. Why not invest some points into block and heavy armor/medium armor passives (depending on which one you choose to wear) to further mitigate burst damage?

You have ample of opportunities for counterplay. It just depends on how you build your character.

You can find more info here:

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Skills#Passive_skills

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Armor

BobzUrUncle

The wikipedia has a section on balancing and Steven stated that they want the rock-paper-scissors dynamic. That is why they are not balancing 1v1.

There will be match ups in 1v1s where one class will be superior to another; and that application should be a rock-paper-scissors dynamic. We want there to be counter-play between the different classes... Instead it's going to be a group focused balance, where as long as you have the diversity of classes present, that's going to be an equal level playing field. It's going to be very dependent on skill and strategy.[3] – Steven Sharif

NelsonRebel

Im not against it.

So long as there isnt a class thats universally better than the others or isnt a dynamic of one or two classes ruling all others for pvp. The rock, paper, scissors dynamic works in theory.

But this is speculation until we see firsthand how strong the classes/archtypes are and how much the secondary archtypes affect the primary archtypes abilities

There will be other variables to like world skill lines, specific weapon/set synergies that we just wont know until we get to ingame testing

Ryufu

This is very much a team game. If you're looking for 1v1 arena fights or something then you're looking in the wrong place. There might be a small area where that might be in the game, but in no way is it the focus. The focus of this game is the node system and how groups of people interact in and around them.

Even in a 1v1 scenario in the open world, keep in mind that it is open world pvp. So, you might think its just you and one person, but another (or group of people) will come along and kill you anyway. Doesn't matter how good you are as one person verses 8 people. The point of this statement is that the game isn't created for one verses one game play.

Caeryl

valerian wrote: »

That's a problem

There are lots of assumptions there, overtime if they start balancing classes having in mind only for group game play then they will fall into the trap of making some classes better in 1 vs 1 un-intentionally. A good developer should have in mind for both types of gameplay.

For example, if the community demands to buff the gap closing and damage of a rogue because in a group setting the mages always easily nuke the rogues 1st and have no chance then that will also buff the rogue for 1 vs 1 because the game doesn't distinguish if your playing as a group or not?

Also, you mention that i noticed that ashes isn't particularly solo-friendly game and yet there is 1 vs 1 scenarios in any mmorpg you play. And there isn't alot of combat footage yet for the mmorpg and lots can change between now and then.

BobzUrUncle wrote: »

The wikipedia has a section on balancing and Steven stated that they want the rock-paper-scissors dynamic. That is why they are not balancing 1v1.

There will be match ups in 1v1s where one class will be superior to another; and that application should be a rock-paper-scissors dynamic. We want there to be counter-play between the different classes... Instead it's going to be a group focused balance, where as long as you have the diversity of classes present, that's going to be an equal level playing field. It's going to be very dependent on skill and strategy.[3] – Steven Sharif

It’s not a problem to have hard counters and distinct class weaknesses/strengths. Balancing for the 1v1 just means you end up homogenizing every class.

The presence of potential situation where you fight 1v1 doesn’t mean anything about the game’s design philosophy. Ashes will support and reward group play; none of its planned features support or reward solo play. In many cases, it’s discouraged, such as with caravans.

Songcaller

Passives are tied to primary class.

Hansrutger

Balancing group content instead of 1v1 means that there won't be any metas where it most matters: group content (there will always be some form of meta yes, but if they focus on balancing it, it will be less significant). There's no such thing as making everyone happy, look at how boring it was in WoW when everyone had an interupt, a stun, a self heal and a damage reduction, that leads to 1 class and not 64... now how fun is that? At least they are decisive enough to make one type of player happy: group content players. Finally a game for that.

speely

Another great thing about balancing for group v group as opposed to 1 v 1 is that every class has a greater chance to be desirable, making group finding/building easier. If all classes are somewhat balanced against one another in a 1 v 1 situation, then you run the risk of any incremental, even marginal advantages creating a meta where only a few classes are popular at any given time based on the inevitable nerfs/buffs. If classes are built with group usefulness as a priority, then you can potentially allow for more variance in group makeup, which is great for such a social game.

I love the combination of large class number and group-focused balancing and content. One thing I LOVE to do in games is to go against the grain and see how much above my weight I can punch. Content not meant to be soloed? My Bard isn't meant to take on a Rogue? Hold my beer.

Demonhunter1

Hansrutger wrote: »

Balancing group content instead of 1v1 means that there won't be any metas where it most matters: group content (there will always be some form of meta yes, but if they focus on balancing it, it will be less significant). There's no such thing as making everyone happy, look at how boring it was in WoW when everyone had an interupt, a stun, a self heal and a damage reduction, that leads to 1 class and not 64... now how fun is that? At least they are decisive enough to make one type of player happy: group content players. Finally a game for that.

You make a good point by saying you can't make everyone happy, but in this case obviously Steven has completely ignored the 1 type of player which is the solo pvp'er. The solo pvp'er is a very large player base also in contrast to group PVP'ers. Given the fact that there are classes who are just going to dominate 1 vs 1 because there are no counter play for it, maybe they will pick up there pitch forks and knock on Steven's door.

Caeryl

valerian wrote: »

Hansrutger wrote: »

Balancing group content instead of 1v1 means that there won't be any metas where it most matters: group content (there will always be some form of meta yes, but if they focus on balancing it, it will be less significant). There's no such thing as making everyone happy, look at how boring it was in WoW when everyone had an interupt, a stun, a self heal and a damage reduction, that leads to 1 class and not 64... now how fun is that? At least they are decisive enough to make one type of player happy: group content players. Finally a game for that.

You make a good point by saying you can't make everyone happy, but in this case obviously Steven has completely ignored the 1 type of player which is the solo pvp'er. The solo pvp'er is a very large player base also in contrast to group PVP'ers. Given the fact that there are classes who are just going to dominate 1 vs 1 because there are no counter play for it, maybe they will pick up there pitch forks and knock on Steven's door.

The solo PvPer is not a group they’re trying to appeal to. Same as they aren’t trying to appeal to PvE-only players. Ashes will not cater to every type of player and that’s alright. People can decide if these gameplay aspects are ones they can live with or not.

As for this mythical “OP 1v1 class” that you think is going to beat everyone:

and that application should be a rock-paper-scissors dynamic. We want there to be counter-play between the different classes

There will always be something that beats it.

Jexz

valerian wrote: »

Hansrutger wrote: »

You make a good point by saying you can't make everyone happy, but in this case obviously Steven has completely ignored the 1 type of player which is the solo pvp'er. The solo pvp'er is a very large player base also in contrast to group PVP'ers. Given the fact that there are classes who are just going to dominate 1 vs 1 because there are no counter play for it, maybe they will pick up there pitch forks and knock on Steven's door.

How does that ignore the solo player. The solo player can just play what ever is meta 1v1
What ever is meta 1v1 may change through out the game life. But hey if your class gets nerfed 1v1 at least you know its balanced in groups. You can then adapt by switching up your game play or re roll to the new meta.

The only downfall is a possible stagnant 1v1 arena. But just because they are balancing for group does not mean the DPS wont be close to each other.

Demonhunter1

That's what im trying to say, I think it's counter-productive to try to balance classes for group play because it's going to affect solo classes for PVP inadvertently. If you have solo pvp meta class, then people might say why are you not giving my class some love for solo pvp?

Beekeeper

Ah, but nothing beats rock! I always go rock, that's how you win.

Demonhunter1

I like sizzors, i love a sharp edge.

mrwaffles

valerian wrote: »

You make a good point by saying you can't make everyone happy, but in this case obviously Steven has completely ignored the 1 type of player which is the solo pvp'er. The solo pvp'er is a very large player base also in contrast to group PVP'ers. Given the fact that there are classes who are just going to dominate 1 vs 1 because there are no counter play for it, maybe they will pick up there pitch forks and knock on Steven's door.

I'm a solo PVPr and I don't feel left out one bit. All my friends of 10+ years are also solo PVPrs and we are all KS backers. We love games where the game is stacked against us. In the event that we are over powered that 1 in a 100 win is so freaking satisfying. We also almost always have 2nd or even 3rd toons that are opposite to our mains. This is fun because it is our version of replay-ability. I have always hated balancing for 1v1. Steven and the team are not going to create a game based on the complaints and criticisms of individuals "who know whats best". Your pitch forks comment, even in jest, are becoming far to common. He and the AoC team have a clear vision and providing feedback AFTER testing has been done helps made educated decisions. They want proper tests to help them make better decisions that use their own system. They dont want to follow every other MMO and simply comply to the standard. I would much rather AoC sticks to their guns and make their vision and it fail then to change it by balancing (classes, towns, raids, and other content) which makes the game everything that has convinced me to leave other MMOs.

Demonhunter1

Well I hope it works out for everyone, not trying to take away from group PVP at all but again if I'm going to PVP 1 vs 1, I'm trying to find out if this game will give me a chance or else ill just stick to group PVP. Say for example I participate in an arena and I'm a rogue vs a mage. And we are both max level with decent gear and the game isn't balanced for 1 vs 1 so the mage has a huge advantage over me and no matter how hard I try I will lose even if our gear is on par. Even if my pvp skill is amazing I still lose due to numbers and not skill. So I hope people don't complain and just stick to group pvp i guess?

Songcaller

It is likely the rogue and ranger will be Hard Counters to Mages and Summoners.

Child Item