Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » You guys might have to expand on this for me. I don't know either of these proves me wrong and seem beside the point. Dygz said that people who want perfect balance, want it because they don't like rpg elements. I disagreed with that saying that people could want perfect balance because they want to be able to pick a class off without worrying about combat performance. I also postulated that a person who didn't care about RPG elements wouldn't care about the class they play so they should be fine with picking the class the performs the best. I don't think saying they want it for selfish reasons proves what i said wrong. I didn't say that gamers don't like RPG elements, I said they don't care about the RPG elements, what they primarily care about are the competitive player elements - more like an FPS than the cooperative interactions of the strengths and weaknesses of the various roles of each character in group combat. RPGs are balanced so that each class/role in a group as strengths and weaknesses that the other classes don't have - so that each individual character has to rely on the other characters in the group to succeed - rather than being balanced so that any individual player can fairly commonly beat any other player 1v1 - especially if one of the players is a better player than the other. A gamer might still prefer to play one class more than the other, but a gamer who wants the classes to be balanced evenly for 1v1 combat doesn't care about the group combat roles those classes are designed for in an RPG. If classes are evenly balanced, I don't understand how it's possible for one class to perform the best. mcstackerson wrote: » You can assume motive all you like and say they have all the bad intentions in the world but I don't think it's weird or malicious for someone to want to be able to pick a class without worrying about who it's strong and weak against. I never said that gamers who want the classes to be evenly balanced for 1v1 combat have bad intentions or that it's weird or malicious. It's just counter to roleplay - Specifically, role each class was designed to play within a group. It's kind of like wanting everyone in soccer to be able to control the ball with their hands, instead of leaving that feature something only the goal keeper can do. Would it make you feel better if i said i wasn't for perfect balance and support rock, paper,scissors balance? I'm really just pointing out an issue i see with dygz's logic. mcstackerson wrote: » I'm not sure if rock, paper, scissors is core to an RPG but if it is, does it really mean that a person can only enjoy an rpg if they enjoy that aspect of it? Can't people enjoy rpg class systems without enjoying rock, paper, scissors combat? I don't think it's that weird for a person who enjoys the aesthetic and lore of the wizard class to also not like auto losing to the warrior class that counters them. I don't think that person hates all RPG aspects because they want the game balanced so they stand a chance in that fight. Especially in MMORPGs, players can enjoy playing all kinds of ways. Even though MMORPGS are designed for characters to level almost exclusively through killing stuff, some players still find ways to level to max with no kills or to level to max with no deaths. Players can spend all of their time soloing or all of their time crafting. But, what we're really talking about here is the dev philosophy. It's no different than asking for separate PvE or RP servers. If the devs want to support that, great. That's the way they've chosen to design their game. If the devs have chosen not to support that, we just have to wait to see if they're able to grab the numbers of players they're hoping to attract. If the devs have chosen to return to a more traditional RPG class balance -"rock, paper, scissors"- then, we have to wait to see if they can attract the numbers of players they're hoping to attract. It's interesting, though, how I say that gamers don't really care about the RPG elements of MMORPGs and you mirror back that I said they "don't like the RPG elements" and then escalate that to they "hate all RPG elements". mcstackerson wrote: » I'm not advocating for "perfect balance" as I said. I'm just against the idea the all people who want it are against rpgs. I agree with classes having different strengths and weaknesses. Except... you are the only person who has said, "all people who want it are against rpgs". I'm not aware of anyone else here stating that as a point of discussion. mcstackerson wrote: » Assuming we are talking about the 8 base archetypes, we kind of have the option for both with how open the class system is as well as the other progression systems you can advance in. Not saying we have perfect 1v1 balance but we know that you can use the different forms of horizontal progression to either try to cover up your weaknesses or double down on your strengths. Once again, won't be perfect balance but there are a lot of options, A lot more then people are used to. The dev philosophy is to balance in order to promote a rock, paper, scissors relationship for the primary archetypes. Augments aren't really going to change those relationships significantly.
mcstackerson wrote: » You guys might have to expand on this for me. I don't know either of these proves me wrong and seem beside the point. Dygz said that people who want perfect balance, want it because they don't like rpg elements. I disagreed with that saying that people could want perfect balance because they want to be able to pick a class off without worrying about combat performance. I also postulated that a person who didn't care about RPG elements wouldn't care about the class they play so they should be fine with picking the class the performs the best. I don't think saying they want it for selfish reasons proves what i said wrong.
mcstackerson wrote: » You can assume motive all you like and say they have all the bad intentions in the world but I don't think it's weird or malicious for someone to want to be able to pick a class without worrying about who it's strong and weak against.
mcstackerson wrote: » I'm not sure if rock, paper, scissors is core to an RPG but if it is, does it really mean that a person can only enjoy an rpg if they enjoy that aspect of it? Can't people enjoy rpg class systems without enjoying rock, paper, scissors combat? I don't think it's that weird for a person who enjoys the aesthetic and lore of the wizard class to also not like auto losing to the warrior class that counters them. I don't think that person hates all RPG aspects because they want the game balanced so they stand a chance in that fight.
mcstackerson wrote: » I'm not advocating for "perfect balance" as I said. I'm just against the idea the all people who want it are against rpgs. I agree with classes having different strengths and weaknesses.
mcstackerson wrote: » Assuming we are talking about the 8 base archetypes, we kind of have the option for both with how open the class system is as well as the other progression systems you can advance in. Not saying we have perfect 1v1 balance but we know that you can use the different forms of horizontal progression to either try to cover up your weaknesses or double down on your strengths. Once again, won't be perfect balance but there are a lot of options, A lot more then people are used to.
mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » You guys might have to expand on this for me. I don't know either of these proves me wrong and seem beside the point. Dygz said that people who want perfect balance, want it because they don't like rpg elements. I disagreed with that saying that people could want perfect balance because they want to be able to pick a class off without worrying about combat performance. I also postulated that a person who didn't care about RPG elements wouldn't care about the class they play so they should be fine with picking the class the performs the best. I don't think saying they want it for selfish reasons proves what i said wrong. I didn't say that gamers don't like RPG elements, I said they don't care about the RPG elements, what they primarily care about are the competitive player elements - more like an FPS than the cooperative interactions of the strengths and weaknesses of the various roles of each character in group combat. RPGs are balanced so that each class/role in a group as strengths and weaknesses that the other classes don't have - so that each individual character has to rely on the other characters in the group to succeed - rather than being balanced so that any individual player can fairly commonly beat any other player 1v1 - especially if one of the players is a better player than the other. A gamer might still prefer to play one class more than the other, but a gamer who wants the classes to be balanced evenly for 1v1 combat doesn't care about the group combat roles those classes are designed for in an RPG. If classes are evenly balanced, I don't understand how it's possible for one class to perform the best. mcstackerson wrote: » You can assume motive all you like and say they have all the bad intentions in the world but I don't think it's weird or malicious for someone to want to be able to pick a class without worrying about who it's strong and weak against. I never said that gamers who want the classes to be evenly balanced for 1v1 combat have bad intentions or that it's weird or malicious. It's just counter to roleplay - Specifically, role each class was designed to play within a group. It's kind of like wanting everyone in soccer to be able to control the ball with their hands, instead of leaving that feature something only the goal keeper can do. Would it make you feel better if i said i wasn't for perfect balance and support rock, paper,scissors balance? I'm really just pointing out an issue i see with dygz's logic. mcstackerson wrote: » I'm not sure if rock, paper, scissors is core to an RPG but if it is, does it really mean that a person can only enjoy an rpg if they enjoy that aspect of it? Can't people enjoy rpg class systems without enjoying rock, paper, scissors combat? I don't think it's that weird for a person who enjoys the aesthetic and lore of the wizard class to also not like auto losing to the warrior class that counters them. I don't think that person hates all RPG aspects because they want the game balanced so they stand a chance in that fight. Especially in MMORPGs, players can enjoy playing all kinds of ways. Even though MMORPGS are designed for characters to level almost exclusively through killing stuff, some players still find ways to level to max with no kills or to level to max with no deaths. Players can spend all of their time soloing or all of their time crafting. But, what we're really talking about here is the dev philosophy. It's no different than asking for separate PvE or RP servers. If the devs want to support that, great. That's the way they've chosen to design their game. If the devs have chosen not to support that, we just have to wait to see if they're able to grab the numbers of players they're hoping to attract. If the devs have chosen to return to a more traditional RPG class balance -"rock, paper, scissors"- then, we have to wait to see if they can attract the numbers of players they're hoping to attract. It's interesting, though, how I say that gamers don't really care about the RPG elements of MMORPGs and you mirror back that I said they "don't like the RPG elements" and then escalate that to they "hate all RPG elements". mcstackerson wrote: » I'm not advocating for "perfect balance" as I said. I'm just against the idea the all people who want it are against rpgs. I agree with classes having different strengths and weaknesses. Except... you are the only person who has said, "all people who want it are against rpgs". I'm not aware of anyone else here stating that as a point of discussion. mcstackerson wrote: » Assuming we are talking about the 8 base archetypes, we kind of have the option for both with how open the class system is as well as the other progression systems you can advance in. Not saying we have perfect 1v1 balance but we know that you can use the different forms of horizontal progression to either try to cover up your weaknesses or double down on your strengths. Once again, won't be perfect balance but there are a lot of options, A lot more then people are used to. The dev philosophy is to balance in order to promote a rock, paper, scissors relationship for the primary archetypes. Augments aren't really going to change those relationships significantly. Sorry, I'm not going to break this up as beautifully as you did.1.Sorry, I used like and care interchangeably, my bad if this caused confusion. You say that people who want perfect 1v1 balance, don't care for tradition RPG group roles. You are saying they still care for RPG elements, just not class roles. I think this was your original point that I misinterpreted and then ran with because others disagreed with the premise. I'm going to be difficult and still disagree. I think it's more important in RPG groups for the classes to have roles, not necessarily strengths and weakness. Naturally, you will have some strengths and weaknesses as the roles differ but I don't think they need to be emphasized. I think classes could still server different roles in groups, bring unique utilities and the developers still have some goal of balancing them for the 1v1. Won't ever have perfect balance but I think you could still try without sacrificing RPG group mechanics. Just because someone wants it balanced for the 1v1 fight doesn't mean they don't care about groups. Even in group pvp fights, you should still be working with and relying on your group to succeed. A 5v5 shouldn't become 5 1v1s because the game is balanced for 1v1s. You should be working with your group to defend your team members and focusing down targets. Once again, i'm not advocating for 1v1 balancing. I'm just questioning if 1. people who want it don't care for RPG group mechanics 2. How much does 1v1 balancing really take away from RPG group mechanics?2. The bad intentions comment was not directed at you. I quoted others in my post.3. I agree with everything you said here but it is not really what I was arguing. Once again, I was not arguing for a specific balance, I was arguing that people who want "perfect balance" do also care for RPG elements.4. If I said that then my mistake and sorry if it's caused confusion. I hope I clarified the reason for my comments. can you point out where I said this so I can cross it out?5. We will have to see. I agree with how they are balancing but I have heard steven say players should have the option to use different forms of horizontal progression to cover up a classes weakness. Doing so obviously means you give up maximizing your strengths.
Ghoosty wrote: » Despite I am OK with group vs group balance, what you wrote is not true. The same relative strength does not mean your class do not have strengths and weakness. The different game-style define the classes. example: mage vs rouge: rouge can hide, can silent the mage, etc if use his skills properly the rouge can win. mage can use detect invisiblity, can freeze the rouge, can teleport if use his skill properly the mage can win. mage vs cleric: cleric can heal himself, can use curses, can remove harmful spells etc if use his skills properly the cleric can win. mage can use dispell HoT spells, can remove curse, etc if use his skills properly the mage can win mage vs warrior: warrior can jump, can knock down, can make bleed damage, can use shield, etc, if use his skills the warrior can win mage can burn, can freeze, can teleport if use his skill properly the mage can win. As you can see they are balanced, but all classes are different. They can have much other non combat or group/support skills, the play-style is different so you can't say your class choice has no impact or it reduce the RPG part. Not even that we do not have any classes.
Caeryl wrote: » See this is faulty thinking. In this “balance” there are no strengths, because the strengths can be disabled by any matchup and even in these example it would be a “first to attack wins” scenario with two offense classes, or in the case of cleric/mage, a complete standoff where no one gets anywhere. That is not how it should really play out. A rogue’s slippery nature should fair much differently against a tank than another rogue. A rogue’s chance against a tank should be low, their chance against another rogue should be fairly even, and their chance against a cleric or mage should be high assuming each case involves players of equal skill. Likewise, a mage’s fight against a tank should fair well with their ability to kite, cc, and whittle away at HP bars. A fight against a cleric or another mage should go fairly even. And their chance against a rogue should be low. This isn’t a punishment for choosing a class, it’s simply another part of an RPG system. If your priest can challenge an assassin with comfortable odds of winning, if a tank can stand toe to toe and have good odds to kill a mage, then class evidently doesn't have much difference besides the color of effects you see.
Caeryl wrote: » if a tank can stand toe to toe and have good odds to kill a mage, then class evidently doesnt have much difference besides the color of effects you see.
Caeryl wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » You guys might have to expand on this for me. I don't know either of these proves me wrong and seem beside the point. Dygz said that people who want perfect balance, want it because they don't like rpg elements. I disagreed with that saying that people could want perfect balance because they want to be able to pick a class off without worrying about combat performance. I also postulated that a person who didn't care about RPG elements wouldn't care about the class they play so they should be fine with picking the class the performs the best. I don't think saying they want it for selfish reasons proves what i said wrong. I didn't say that gamers don't like RPG elements, I said they don't care about the RPG elements, what they primarily care about are the competitive player elements - more like an FPS than the cooperative interactions of the strengths and weaknesses of the various roles of each character in group combat. RPGs are balanced so that each class/role in a group as strengths and weaknesses that the other classes don't have - so that each individual character has to rely on the other characters in the group to succeed - rather than being balanced so that any individual player can fairly commonly beat any other player 1v1 - especially if one of the players is a better player than the other. A gamer might still prefer to play one class more than the other, but a gamer who wants the classes to be balanced evenly for 1v1 combat doesn't care about the group combat roles those classes are designed for in an RPG. If classes are evenly balanced, I don't understand how it's possible for one class to perform the best. mcstackerson wrote: » You can assume motive all you like and say they have all the bad intentions in the world but I don't think it's weird or malicious for someone to want to be able to pick a class without worrying about who it's strong and weak against. I never said that gamers who want the classes to be evenly balanced for 1v1 combat have bad intentions or that it's weird or malicious. It's just counter to roleplay - Specifically, role each class was designed to play within a group. It's kind of like wanting everyone in soccer to be able to control the ball with their hands, instead of leaving that feature something only the goal keeper can do. Would it make you feel better if i said i wasn't for perfect balance and support rock, paper,scissors balance? I'm really just pointing out an issue i see with dygz's logic. mcstackerson wrote: » I'm not sure if rock, paper, scissors is core to an RPG but if it is, does it really mean that a person can only enjoy an rpg if they enjoy that aspect of it? Can't people enjoy rpg class systems without enjoying rock, paper, scissors combat? I don't think it's that weird for a person who enjoys the aesthetic and lore of the wizard class to also not like auto losing to the warrior class that counters them. I don't think that person hates all RPG aspects because they want the game balanced so they stand a chance in that fight. Especially in MMORPGs, players can enjoy playing all kinds of ways. Even though MMORPGS are designed for characters to level almost exclusively through killing stuff, some players still find ways to level to max with no kills or to level to max with no deaths. Players can spend all of their time soloing or all of their time crafting. But, what we're really talking about here is the dev philosophy. It's no different than asking for separate PvE or RP servers. If the devs want to support that, great. That's the way they've chosen to design their game. If the devs have chosen not to support that, we just have to wait to see if they're able to grab the numbers of players they're hoping to attract. If the devs have chosen to return to a more traditional RPG class balance -"rock, paper, scissors"- then, we have to wait to see if they can attract the numbers of players they're hoping to attract. It's interesting, though, how I say that gamers don't really care about the RPG elements of MMORPGs and you mirror back that I said they "don't like the RPG elements" and then escalate that to they "hate all RPG elements". mcstackerson wrote: » I'm not advocating for "perfect balance" as I said. I'm just against the idea the all people who want it are against rpgs. I agree with classes having different strengths and weaknesses. Except... you are the only person who has said, "all people who want it are against rpgs". I'm not aware of anyone else here stating that as a point of discussion. mcstackerson wrote: » Assuming we are talking about the 8 base archetypes, we kind of have the option for both with how open the class system is as well as the other progression systems you can advance in. Not saying we have perfect 1v1 balance but we know that you can use the different forms of horizontal progression to either try to cover up your weaknesses or double down on your strengths. Once again, won't be perfect balance but there are a lot of options, A lot more then people are used to. The dev philosophy is to balance in order to promote a rock, paper, scissors relationship for the primary archetypes. Augments aren't really going to change those relationships significantly. Sorry, I'm not going to break this up as beautifully as you did.1.Sorry, I used like and care interchangeably, my bad if this caused confusion. You say that people who want perfect 1v1 balance, don't care for tradition RPG group roles. You are saying they still care for RPG elements, just not class roles. I think this was your original point that I misinterpreted and then ran with because others disagreed with the premise. I'm going to be difficult and still disagree. I think it's more important in RPG groups for the classes to have roles, not necessarily strengths and weakness. Naturally, you will have some strengths and weaknesses as the roles differ but I don't think they need to be emphasized. I think classes could still server different roles in groups, bring unique utilities and the developers still have some goal of balancing them for the 1v1. Won't ever have perfect balance but I think you could still try without sacrificing RPG group mechanics. Just because someone wants it balanced for the 1v1 fight doesn't mean they don't care about groups. Even in group pvp fights, you should still be working with and relying on your group to succeed. A 5v5 shouldn't become 5 1v1s because the game is balanced for 1v1s. You should be working with your group to defend your team members and focusing down targets. Once again, i'm not advocating for 1v1 balancing. I'm just questioning if 1. people who want it don't care for RPG group mechanics 2. How much does 1v1 balancing really take away from RPG group mechanics?2. The bad intentions comment was not directed at you. I quoted others in my post.3. I agree with everything you said here but it is not really what I was arguing. Once again, I was not arguing for a specific balance, I was arguing that people who want "perfect balance" do also care for RPG elements.4. If I said that then my mistake and sorry if it's caused confusion. I hope I clarified the reason for my comments. can you point out where I said this so I can cross it out?5. We will have to see. I agree with how they are balancing but I have heard steven say players should have the option to use different forms of horizontal progression to cover up a classes weakness. Doing so obviously means you give up maximizing your strengths. It removes the importance of class choice. That is why it goes against the heart of an RPG. For the same reason Ashes will have interactions with character race that will allow only a particular character race access to certain quests, they should have classes that function differently and should not allow a class to cover all of its own weaknesses while retaining all of its strengths.
Dygz wrote: » I said that gamers who want perfect 1v1 balance, don't care about RPG group roles. I did not say they don't care for group roles. The phrase "does not care for" implies a dislike. "Does not care about" describes disinterest. I also did not say that such people do not care groups - they don't care about group roles. What they care about is being able to defeat any class 1v1. You may think that the strengths and weaknesses of each class is not important, but that is counter to RPG design. What you're really saying is that it can be fun to enjoy games that deviate from RPG design but have some RPG elements. Some people might think that the rule for how many steps a player can take without dribbling the ball is basketball is not as important shooting the ball through the hoop. You might think that the rule for how many steps you can take after you've stopped running with the ball is not important. But, horse is a different game than basketball - despite sharing some of the same elements. You're saying that there won't ever be perfect balance and I'm saying the concepts of the classes were never intended to be balanced for 1v1 combat. A Fighter in plate mail is intended to be stronger and soak more physical damage in melee than a Mage in robes which is designed to be physically weak but deal excessive amounts of ranged damage in quick bursts. The concepts for these classes were designed specifically to support each other in group combat rather than being designed to fight each other 1v1 in single combat. Because RPG combat is intended to be focused primarily on the synergies of the classes in group combat -as a military unit- rather than being focused on player-v-player combat. Gamers like to focus on player-v-player competition rather than on the cooperation of characters v content. RPGs are designed for the latter - with direct PvP combat as an option. Not necessarily always the best option, but it's still an option players can take. Most of the PvP combat in Ashes is still focused on group content, rather than 1v1 duels. Ashes is not going to be balanced for 1v1 PvP duels. Because once classes are balanced primarily for 1v1 duels - that's really becoming some other game type - like horse is different than basketball and like soccer and football are different than rugby. If the classes are balanced for 1v1 duels rather than balanced for the combat roles for group content - well that is inherently moving away from being a role-playing game and moving closer to being a dueling fighter game. And, at the end of the day, it's up to the devs to determine where they want their game to fit on the spectrum.
Dygz wrote: »
marzzo1337 wrote: » dygz wrote: » marzzo1337 wrote: » Just wait until your precious guilds castle gets overrun by 200 "Fire mages" one-shotting everyone with endless aoe with no counterplay and spawnkilling you all til 500+ hours of work are razed to the ground. If only, if only, that AOE stun effect only worked in pve. This can't really happen in a Castle Siege - especially not spawn-killing. Seems unlikely that an alliance of 200 Mages would fair well in a Castle Siege since the objectives for Castle Sieges will probably require a more balanced spread of archetypes. That's one of the ways that specific scenario will be avoided. Castle Siege isn't just about bringing a horde of attackers. Also, it takes a month to prepare for a Castle Siege. Even if those 200 Fire Mages were able to one-shot everyone during the first two weeks of Castle-node sieges, the devs would likely step in and put an end to those shenanigans, since it seems more like an exploit than intended gameplay. Also... that is what testing is for. Trust me, sieges will never have a balanced spread of archtypes. Class stacking is bound to happen. Some classes will always be mathematicly better than other. You as an individual dont need to care ofc. But some guilds will want to maximize power, and class stacking is always key.
dygz wrote: » marzzo1337 wrote: » Just wait until your precious guilds castle gets overrun by 200 "Fire mages" one-shotting everyone with endless aoe with no counterplay and spawnkilling you all til 500+ hours of work are razed to the ground. If only, if only, that AOE stun effect only worked in pve. This can't really happen in a Castle Siege - especially not spawn-killing. Seems unlikely that an alliance of 200 Mages would fair well in a Castle Siege since the objectives for Castle Sieges will probably require a more balanced spread of archetypes. That's one of the ways that specific scenario will be avoided. Castle Siege isn't just about bringing a horde of attackers. Also, it takes a month to prepare for a Castle Siege. Even if those 200 Fire Mages were able to one-shot everyone during the first two weeks of Castle-node sieges, the devs would likely step in and put an end to those shenanigans, since it seems more like an exploit than intended gameplay. Also... that is what testing is for.
marzzo1337 wrote: » Just wait until your precious guilds castle gets overrun by 200 "Fire mages" one-shotting everyone with endless aoe with no counterplay and spawnkilling you all til 500+ hours of work are razed to the ground. If only, if only, that AOE stun effect only worked in pve.
blackhearted wrote: » What if the stun was only 2s in both pvp and pve?@HumblePuffin
wolfwood82 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXX8URSUWm0 There's your rock paper scissors balance in a nutshell. In the end, it's a dumb balance strategy anyway. Give a class the ability to stealth, it immediately obtains a massive tactical advantage and strategic advantage. It can choose when and where to hit, from what direction, and even whether or not it hits to begin with. Classes should be made so that they counter each other effectively based on circumstance. A rogue has a huge advantage with stealth, however any class should be able to defeat the rogue if they react to detecting the rogue quickly enough. A mage should be well balanced between offense and defense, they should be hard to take out in a stand up fight, but vulnerable to an ambush (like from a rogue), and tanks should be resilient, able to withstand spell effects better than others, but susceptible to certain situations (DoTs for example). Basically, any class should be able to specialize in rock, paper, or scissors, while still capable of throwing the other two to some degree. Making one class rock, another scissors, and another paper, means that for your entire time playing a class, you are limited to a one trick horse. And that's just not fun for anyone.
Wandering Mist wrote: » wolfwood82 wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXX8URSUWm0 There's your rock paper scissors balance in a nutshell. In the end, it's a dumb balance strategy anyway. Give a class the ability to stealth, it immediately obtains a massive tactical advantage and strategic advantage. It can choose when and where to hit, from what direction, and even whether or not it hits to begin with. Classes should be made so that they counter each other effectively based on circumstance. A rogue has a huge advantage with stealth, however any class should be able to defeat the rogue if they react to detecting the rogue quickly enough. A mage should be well balanced between offense and defense, they should be hard to take out in a stand up fight, but vulnerable to an ambush (like from a rogue), and tanks should be resilient, able to withstand spell effects better than others, but susceptible to certain situations (DoTs for example). Basically, any class should be able to specialize in rock, paper, or scissors, while still capable of throwing the other two to some degree. Making one class rock, another scissors, and another paper, means that for your entire time playing a class, you are limited to a one trick horse. And that's just not fun for anyone. Stealth is always a very tough thing to balance in any game. We can use WoW as the example of this. Imagine if Rogues didn't have stealth at all. They have no gap closers and are squishy melee fighters, meaning without stealth any ranged opponent can kite them and kill them before the Rogue ever gets into melee range. So you give Rogues a stealth mechanic in order to allow them to reach their target without dying instantly. But now the Rogues are too strong in 1v1 because their only weakness has been taken away thanks to stealth. At this point you have 2 options. Either you put in a counter-measure for the stealth system (i.e. a way to detect stealthed players), or give Rogues another weakness to balance out the strength of the stealth mechanic. Oh and as for that video, I'm pretty sure WoW has never aimed for a cyclical balance in their class gameplay at all. If you want an example of cyclical balance you'd be better off looking at League of Legends, where every champion has a counter (either an item or another champion) to offset its strengths.
