think about a archer in the movie "Braveheart" if there is a reason they stay in the back at range, because they're protected from the infantry who would waste them, this is why "flanking" was so important to gain a tactical advantage over weaker units and take the element of surprise. Would you expect that aarcher to go toe to toe with a hardened skilled swordsman, if you were honest it would be no.
Exactly, but it's not only that it's an open world pvp, meaning you can find a solo player and gank em anywhere in the world or even if that player fights back and you both get flagged then no corruption and you end up dueling that person.
So, the point is that you are allowing 1 vs 1 also in the game but not actually balancing the classes towards it.
think about a archer in the movie "Braveheart" if there is a reason they stay in the back at range, because they're protected from the infantry who would waste them, this is why "flanking" was so important to gain a tactical advantage over weaker units and take the element of surprise. Would you expect that aarcher to go toe to toe with a hardened skilled swordsman, if you were honest it would be no.
Well there is weapon swapping in the game, a skilled fighter in the game can also use a ranged weapon or a shield and close the gap on an opponent (archer) if he's skilled enough. Besides this is a fantasy game where the combat doesn't exactly reflect "real life" so in a fantasy game your powers are make belief like teleportation to escape or close the gap abilities etc..
0
Options
NelsonRebelMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
and no matter how hard I try I will lose even if our gear is on par.
The way they've talked about gear, level, and class in PvP, I don't think it'll be this extreme; your skill will count and you can still win in these cases.
This.
I imagine it's going to be more along the lines of:
If you are facing another player with an equal skill level, and they are playing a class that is a hard counter to yours, you will lose. Rock beats Scissors
If you are facing another player with a lower skill level, and they are playing a class that is a hard counter to yours, you might lose, you might win. Rock normally beats Scissors, but this Rock is made of gypsum, while the Scissors are made of good steel. Maybe Rock crushes Scissors. Maybe Scissors are able to hold together and split Rock apart.
This is how I would imagine it will be.
But then again, we dont know yet how the classes abilties and passives synergize yet. Or how potent each nodes progression path will affect players.
In other mmos you can pretty concretely answer this is a couple ways. But with AoC its harder to determine just because we know that there will be religions and node area progression that will influence a characters power along with any item sets, passives, world skill lines and any temporary buffs from sources like being a city leader.
Ultimately they may not all have a large impact but we'll have to wait and see. People see balance like a kaleidescope depending what their prefered class or style is. Myself included sometimes, though I try to be objective as possible.
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
I hope the rock-paper-scissors dynamic isn't the same one WoW classic had, where warlocks provided the 4th element (mushrooms) :>
I remember playing Silkroad Online and always losing to the same skill-type. Some fights you can not win. Then again, if I was in a group, I could nuke them easily. I'm glad they don't balance to 1v1 even though I will probably get in a lot of 1v1 situations. There's no risk vs reward anymore in recent games. Anyone can win anything. I like situations where you HAVE TO run because you're a summoner and there's a fighter / rogue coming your way. It makes the game exciting. You either run and outsmart him or he catches up to you and you die. 1 min later you see a solo bard and you rek him.
Sometimes you're frustrated and sometimes you feel invincible. I'm glad Steven realizes this.
WoW's VP once called arenas their biggest mistake, because it made everything in the game so much harder to balance.
The game, at it's core, is trying to make people depend on each other, not to mention the amount of work that would require.
I mean, the Bard is the best example, they focus on AoE buffs and heals- so do we give them and other classes a 1v1 spec to be on par with others, do we just exclude Bards from 1v1's?
Not to say there aren't positives about balancing for 1v1's, but this game is a really bad place for it, it's very counter intuitive to their entire game philosophy.
always a class will have leverage above another but for sure 1v1 should be more or less balanced... eg. if mages can kite 100% a tank/warrior then for sure there should be a gap closure buff for tank/war ... this is present in all MMOs.
Exactly, but it's not only that it's an open world pvp, meaning you can find a solo player and gank em anywhere in the world or even if that player fights back and you both get flagged then no corruption and you end up dueling that person.
So, the point is that you are allowing 1 vs 1 also in the game but not actually balancing the classes towards it.
think about a archer in the movie "Braveheart" if there is a reason they stay in the back at range, because they're protected from the infantry who would waste them, this is why "flanking" was so important to gain a tactical advantage over weaker units and take the element of surprise. Would you expect that aarcher to go toe to toe with a hardened skilled swordsman, if you were honest it would be no.
Well there is weapon swapping in the game, a skilled fighter in the game can also use a ranged weapon or a shield and close the gap on an opponent (archer) if he's skilled enough. Besides this is a fantasy game where the combat doesn't exactly reflect "real life" so in a fantasy game your powers are make belief like teleportation to escape or close the gap abilities etc..
of course he can switch weapons, but he is obvioulsy going to be MUCH more proficient in sword than the bowman, let's not grasp for straws here. In rock,Paper, Scissors people can't have their cake and eait it too. You have to have some weakness.
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 believe the group of arena/battleground players is a lot higher that the amount of solo pvp'ers, I hope the balance PvE content around groups of 8th as stated and PvP contend around 3v3 arena.
Obviously I also hope for some sort of 1v1 balance so one class doesn't destroy you tho you're "a better player".
But as you said, it's basically impossible to make everyone happy.
If you are facing another player with an equal skill level, and they are playing a class that is a hard counter to yours, you will lose. Rock beats Scissors
If you are facing another player with a lower skill level, and they are playing a class that is a hard counter to yours, you might lose, you might win. Rock normally beats Scissors, but this Rock is made of gypsum, while the Scissors are made of good steel. Maybe Rock crushes Scissors. Maybe Scissors are able to hold together and split Rock apart.
This would pretty much best case scenario I would imagine.
I'm not sure why this is something people would concieve as an issue in Ashes.
There absolutely will be classes that perform better over all in 1v1 PvP than other classes, there will also be classes that perform better in solo PvE than other classes.
When you pick a class you enjoy, you should pick it because you like how the class plays and how it fits in to how you play - not because the name sounds cool.
If you are someone that often gets involved in 1v1 PvP, pick a class that is good at it.
Suggesting that all classes should be as good as all otehr classes in 1v1 would suggest that all classes should be balanced around all aspects of the game and be equal in all of them. Essentially, this means the class you pisk is a weightless decision - and that is not the intention of Ashes.
The other thing to point out is that 1v1 PvP doesn't actually matter in Ashes. It will never be high stakes.
The arenas won't matter, and in the open world the winner will always be the one that brings the most friends.
The closest thing to mattering in this regard is the military node leadership arena, and that is likely to be fought with champions anyways.
I remember playing Silkroad Online and always losing to the same skill-type. Some fights you can not win. Then again, if I was in a group, I could nuke them easily. I'm glad they don't balance to 1v1 even though I will probably get in a lot of 1v1 situations. There's no risk vs reward anymore in recent games. Anyone can win anything. I like situations where you HAVE TO run because you're a summoner and there's a fighter / rogue coming your way. It makes the game exciting. You either run and outsmart him or he catches up to you and you die. 1 min later you see a solo bard and you rek him.
Sometimes you're frustrated and sometimes you feel invincible. I'm glad Steven realizes this.
I maybe can understand your point of view, but lets see if you can understand my point of view. I would rather have my skills in fighting 1 vs 1 determine against any class to be the deciding factor rather then when I see a summoner i have to run away because I see a rogue/fighter that I have no chance against. For me, and this is my personal opinion and I'm sure most people internally share my view, what makes an exciting PVP and risk vs reward would be if you go up against any class and that class beats you not because of a hard counter but because that player is more skilled than you. There are lots of games that are skill based and since this game has both action abilities and tab target, I think it would be fitting to balance 1 vs 1 because if you do, you will also discover that your balancing for group play.
That's why I find it odd that when a company starts balancing classes, it will affect both group play and solo? Not only group as they suggest. No matter how much you try not to think about solo pvp. Maybe it was just for them to save face and not worry about it by thinking community won't notice it, after all there still a lot of development time left for this game and combat can change as time goes on.
I'm not sure why this is something people would concieve as an issue in Ashes.
Well it might not be an issue now, but in the long run after people have played this game for awhile and have their builds and combat down to a science, people are going to say why am i always losing in combat all the time and what am I doing wrong !!! Then they realize that their class just sucks and have to choose another class because it's not balanced right. For example, I recently logged into the forums of an mmorpg under combat/pvp and saw that many people want certain changes from their classes to be more competitive and this game has been out for more than 6 years now. Because for some, investing years on their classes and always trying different builds so they can be more competitive creates an attachment to that particular class.
0
Options
Undead CanuckMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Please remember that they are saying that one class will have an advantage over a certain other class, but will have a disadvantage to another one.
It doesn't mean that one class will 'suck'. It just means that if you have an advantage one time, you might have the disadvantage another time to a different class.
Just like rock-paper-scissors, the advantage is not always with one part. This is why they are balancing to group. So you have at least one of each to balance the other side.
From the wiki: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Game_balance
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
always a class will have leverage above another but for sure 1v1 should be more or less balanced... eg. if mages can kite 100% a tank/warrior then for sure there should be a gap closure buff for tank/war ... this is present in all MMOs.
Pretty much all current MMORPGs are garbage so I'm not sure if this is a good comparison :>
WoW's VP once called arenas their biggest mistake, because it made everything in the game so much harder to balance.
The game, at it's core, is trying to make people depend on each other, not to mention the amount of work that would require.
I mean, the Bard is the best example, they focus on AoE buffs and heals- so do we give them and other classes a 1v1 spec to be on par with others, do we just exclude Bards from 1v1's?
Not to say there aren't positives about balancing for 1v1's, but this game is a really bad place for it, it's very counter intuitive to their entire game philosophy.
problem was, WoW catered to the carebears and was trying to make EVERYONE HAPPY.
Steven seems to already trying to temper people expectation in many areas of the game - saiyng we arent here to make everyone happy and not everyone gonna get what they want.
{UPK} United Player Killer - All your loot belongs to us.
Rock paper scissors is even present in wow to some degree. Frost mages can lock down warriors, warriors can charge down rogues, and rogues can kick mages out of casting. That system just became weaker and muddier over the years, to the point where it's pretty meaningless nowadays.
If you play a tank, and you get kited out by rangers and mages, that doesn't mean tanks are underpowered, just that they're weak to high mobility kite. In return, they can bash around rogues, because rogues need to get up and close to backstab, but a tank can absorb the backstab, clobber back, and keep the rogue in range so he can't go back into hiding. Meanwhile, the rogue has the best tools to sneak up on a mage and kill her quick enough that she can't do her long-winded spells.
In this example, tanks are rock, rogues are scissors, mages are paper. It's a fair system.
That's why I find it odd that when a company starts balancing classes, it will affect both group play and solo? Not only group as they suggest.
They're not saying balance changes only affect group play. They're saying 1v1 play is not a focus of balance changes. It simply can't be when you have classes that fill a support role. If a Bard could go toe-to-toe with any class 1v1 and provide meaningful buffs for a party, it would objectively be the best class in the game.
I think it would be fitting to balance 1 vs 1 because if you do, you will also discover that your balancing for group play.
That's really not how it works. Balancing for 1v1 generally leads to horribly stale gameplay as classes become increasingly homogenized. As already stated, look at WoW, where every class essentially has the same abilities (a hard CC, some form of healing, etc etc) with different flavor.
I fail to see what my attitude has to do with anything, it's my opinion and you have yours. You believe in yours and I believe in mine, aren't we a happy family now ! You all behave kids.
I fail to see what my attitude has to do with anything, it's my opinion and you have yours. You believe in yours and I believe in mine, aren't we a happy family now ! You all behave kids.
I bolded what I was specifically referring to.
It's never good to assume that your opinion is shared by the masses when trying to have a discussion like this. It makes you unwilling to consider the alternative.
I fail to see what my attitude has to do with anything, it's my opinion and you have yours. You believe in yours and I believe in mine, aren't we a happy family now ! You all behave kids.
Because you decided to speak for an imaginary group of people. Now this group might exist, but never speak for others unless you are related to that group in a direct way, for instance a guild master speaking for their guild, a content creator referring to feedback received etc. No one is behaving like a kid.
What imaginary people? you mean people who like to pvp solo with their favorite class? And the fact that people love to beat up on others in PVP purely from a skill point of view? 1vs1? You seem a little lost yourself. Now, this game might not be for everyone but i already states it's not game breaking for me. But im viewing this as a long term investment say 6 years from now when classes usually experience balance changes.
you mean people who like to pvp solo with their favorite class? And the fact that people love to beat up on others in PVP purely from a skill point of view? 1vs1?
It seems less like you want to just PvP with your favorite class, but that you want to want the PvP with your favorite class and always be able to roflstomp anyone else.
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.
It seems like you're forgetting a key part of the class system and why it's better to balance to group combat than 1v1: there are a total of 64 classes that can be played. From a design standpoint it'd be next to impossible to balance all 64 classes for 1v1 and maintain *any* semblance of class distinction. That also ignores the potential of ability combinations being different for different builds.
Ashes is very group content focused as a game. This is a fact of the game design itself. The core idea of the game centers around players having a group of some kind for most content, be it a dedicated group of friends, guildmates, or PUGs. Yes, solo PvP players are a demographic, but balancing all 64 classes around a small subset of players is shortsighted at best. I understand wanting your favorite class combination to be able to stand its ground against everything, but it's unrealistic, and frankly it would be extremely poor design.
We've seen what happens when a game is balanced around 1v1 matches, as others have mentioned in this thread already, and it ends in all classes being the same boring thing with some minor flavor text being the only real difference. Ashes, so far, is heading in a different direction. Balancing around group interactions and the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" approach will make for more interesting PvP requiring more thought than facerolling your skills.
You're entitled to your opinions, and I think there is something to discuss as a community around PvP, but the core design and class system make balancing for 1v1 alone impractical. If even-footed 1v1 PvP is what you want, WoW is the game for it.
One thing I agree on is that Intrepid is trying to lower expectations on class balancing because in fact they are going to have 64 classes in the game. So , i hope peoples expectations will STAY low through out this mmorpg's life which can last for many years to come. I'm trying to remember which other mmorpg had this many classes like Ashes will have?
And just a little clarification, I'm not trying to convince you all that every class has to be exactly equal to another in terms of power. Because, a lot of factors can go in like your level and gear and knowing what your opponent is going to do when your fighting him/her 1 vs 1 if that situation arises. Experiences with other classes and what their abilities do in combat can be a good insight for someone that can make him/her a good pvp'er 1 vs 1.
So, my hoping was that the threshold for 1 vs 1 would of been like experience (your skill level) and soft counters so that each class can have a fighting chance 1 vs 1. Now, I understand that 64 classes is hard to balance because of the sheer number, but it will be equally If not harder to balance a class for group play. And that's part of the reason why specifically their saying 1 vs 1 will be hard and not group play? Maybe if they only had 8 classes , it would of been easier to balance them out? But anyways, we will see how it turns out.
I wouldn't worry too much about classes being unbalanced for a long time because Intrepid will probably act quickly and balance things that are too OP.
With that said, I do believe that if their main focus is balancing group PvP instead of 1v1s, more work will be needed than if they focused on the 1v1s.
I might be wrong, but if they focused on balancing 1v1 combinations following that rock-paper-scissors idea, group PvP would be automatically balanced, or at the least made a lot easier.
That doesn't mean balanced group PvP isn't their main goal, it just means that balancing 1v1s first is more productive.
EDIT: @valerian I think that if they balanced the 8 main archetypes first and made those 28 (if I did my math right) combinations play out really well the rest would be easier to balance after, since the secondary class "only" makes each primary archetype stronger in whichever way its owner wants to.
I'm sure some archtetypes will counter others in some rock, paper, scissors type deal but let's also remember the augments granted from the secondary archetype. The charge becoming an instant blink for example. Who knows how wildly different some archetype skills will become by applying an augment to them. May even shake the rock, paper, scissors a bit and possibly even reverse it.
Figure out whatever is a hard counter to summoners if you want to play the Meta 1v1 open world pvp build. Guarantee summoner class will be over-represented as pet classes inevitably always are.
Comments
Virtue is the only good.
Exactly, but it's not only that it's an open world pvp, meaning you can find a solo player and gank em anywhere in the world or even if that player fights back and you both get flagged then no corruption and you end up dueling that person.
So, the point is that you are allowing 1 vs 1 also in the game but not actually balancing the classes towards it.
Well there is weapon swapping in the game, a skilled fighter in the game can also use a ranged weapon or a shield and close the gap on an opponent (archer) if he's skilled enough. Besides this is a fantasy game where the combat doesn't exactly reflect "real life" so in a fantasy game your powers are make belief like teleportation to escape or close the gap abilities etc..
This is how I would imagine it will be.
But then again, we dont know yet how the classes abilties and passives synergize yet. Or how potent each nodes progression path will affect players.
In other mmos you can pretty concretely answer this is a couple ways. But with AoC its harder to determine just because we know that there will be religions and node area progression that will influence a characters power along with any item sets, passives, world skill lines and any temporary buffs from sources like being a city leader.
Ultimately they may not all have a large impact but we'll have to wait and see. People see balance like a kaleidescope depending what their prefered class or style is. Myself included sometimes, though I try to be objective as possible.
Sometimes you're frustrated and sometimes you feel invincible. I'm glad Steven realizes this.
The game, at it's core, is trying to make people depend on each other, not to mention the amount of work that would require.
I mean, the Bard is the best example, they focus on AoE buffs and heals- so do we give them and other classes a 1v1 spec to be on par with others, do we just exclude Bards from 1v1's?
Not to say there aren't positives about balancing for 1v1's, but this game is a really bad place for it, it's very counter intuitive to their entire game philosophy.
of course he can switch weapons, but he is obvioulsy going to be MUCH more proficient in sword than the bowman, let's not grasp for straws here. In rock,Paper, Scissors people can't have their cake and eait it too. You have to have some weakness.
I believe the group of arena/battleground players is a lot higher that the amount of solo pvp'ers, I hope the balance PvE content around groups of 8th as stated and PvP contend around 3v3 arena.
Obviously I also hope for some sort of 1v1 balance so one class doesn't destroy you tho you're "a better player".
But as you said, it's basically impossible to make everyone happy.
This would pretty much best case scenario I would imagine.
There absolutely will be classes that perform better over all in 1v1 PvP than other classes, there will also be classes that perform better in solo PvE than other classes.
When you pick a class you enjoy, you should pick it because you like how the class plays and how it fits in to how you play - not because the name sounds cool.
If you are someone that often gets involved in 1v1 PvP, pick a class that is good at it.
Suggesting that all classes should be as good as all otehr classes in 1v1 would suggest that all classes should be balanced around all aspects of the game and be equal in all of them. Essentially, this means the class you pisk is a weightless decision - and that is not the intention of Ashes.
The other thing to point out is that 1v1 PvP doesn't actually matter in Ashes. It will never be high stakes.
The arenas won't matter, and in the open world the winner will always be the one that brings the most friends.
The closest thing to mattering in this regard is the military node leadership arena, and that is likely to be fought with champions anyways.
I maybe can understand your point of view, but lets see if you can understand my point of view. I would rather have my skills in fighting 1 vs 1 determine against any class to be the deciding factor rather then when I see a summoner i have to run away because I see a rogue/fighter that I have no chance against. For me, and this is my personal opinion and I'm sure most people internally share my view, what makes an exciting PVP and risk vs reward would be if you go up against any class and that class beats you not because of a hard counter but because that player is more skilled than you. There are lots of games that are skill based and since this game has both action abilities and tab target, I think it would be fitting to balance 1 vs 1 because if you do, you will also discover that your balancing for group play.
That's why I find it odd that when a company starts balancing classes, it will affect both group play and solo? Not only group as they suggest. No matter how much you try not to think about solo pvp. Maybe it was just for them to save face and not worry about it by thinking community won't notice it, after all there still a lot of development time left for this game and combat can change as time goes on.
Well it might not be an issue now, but in the long run after people have played this game for awhile and have their builds and combat down to a science, people are going to say why am i always losing in combat all the time and what am I doing wrong !!! Then they realize that their class just sucks and have to choose another class because it's not balanced right. For example, I recently logged into the forums of an mmorpg under combat/pvp and saw that many people want certain changes from their classes to be more competitive and this game has been out for more than 6 years now. Because for some, investing years on their classes and always trying different builds so they can be more competitive creates an attachment to that particular class.
It doesn't mean that one class will 'suck'. It just means that if you have an advantage one time, you might have the disadvantage another time to a different class.
Just like rock-paper-scissors, the advantage is not always with one part. This is why they are balancing to group. So you have at least one of each to balance the other side.
From the wiki:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Game_balance
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
problem was, WoW catered to the carebears and was trying to make EVERYONE HAPPY.
Steven seems to already trying to temper people expectation in many areas of the game - saiyng we arent here to make everyone happy and not everyone gonna get what they want.
If you play a tank, and you get kited out by rangers and mages, that doesn't mean tanks are underpowered, just that they're weak to high mobility kite. In return, they can bash around rogues, because rogues need to get up and close to backstab, but a tank can absorb the backstab, clobber back, and keep the rogue in range so he can't go back into hiding. Meanwhile, the rogue has the best tools to sneak up on a mage and kill her quick enough that she can't do her long-winded spells.
In this example, tanks are rock, rogues are scissors, mages are paper. It's a fair system.
This is just not a good attitude to have, man.
They're not saying balance changes only affect group play. They're saying 1v1 play is not a focus of balance changes. It simply can't be when you have classes that fill a support role. If a Bard could go toe-to-toe with any class 1v1 and provide meaningful buffs for a party, it would objectively be the best class in the game.
That's really not how it works. Balancing for 1v1 generally leads to horribly stale gameplay as classes become increasingly homogenized. As already stated, look at WoW, where every class essentially has the same abilities (a hard CC, some form of healing, etc etc) with different flavor.
I bolded what I was specifically referring to.
It's never good to assume that your opinion is shared by the masses when trying to have a discussion like this. It makes you unwilling to consider the alternative.
Because you decided to speak for an imaginary group of people. Now this group might exist, but never speak for others unless you are related to that group in a direct way, for instance a guild master speaking for their guild, a content creator referring to feedback received etc. No one is behaving like a kid.
It seems less like you want to just PvP with your favorite class, but that you want to want the PvP with your favorite class and always be able to roflstomp anyone else.
It seems like you're forgetting a key part of the class system and why it's better to balance to group combat than 1v1: there are a total of 64 classes that can be played. From a design standpoint it'd be next to impossible to balance all 64 classes for 1v1 and maintain *any* semblance of class distinction. That also ignores the potential of ability combinations being different for different builds.
Ashes is very group content focused as a game. This is a fact of the game design itself. The core idea of the game centers around players having a group of some kind for most content, be it a dedicated group of friends, guildmates, or PUGs. Yes, solo PvP players are a demographic, but balancing all 64 classes around a small subset of players is shortsighted at best. I understand wanting your favorite class combination to be able to stand its ground against everything, but it's unrealistic, and frankly it would be extremely poor design.
We've seen what happens when a game is balanced around 1v1 matches, as others have mentioned in this thread already, and it ends in all classes being the same boring thing with some minor flavor text being the only real difference. Ashes, so far, is heading in a different direction. Balancing around group interactions and the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" approach will make for more interesting PvP requiring more thought than facerolling your skills.
You're entitled to your opinions, and I think there is something to discuss as a community around PvP, but the core design and class system make balancing for 1v1 alone impractical. If even-footed 1v1 PvP is what you want, WoW is the game for it.
And just a little clarification, I'm not trying to convince you all that every class has to be exactly equal to another in terms of power. Because, a lot of factors can go in like your level and gear and knowing what your opponent is going to do when your fighting him/her 1 vs 1 if that situation arises. Experiences with other classes and what their abilities do in combat can be a good insight for someone that can make him/her a good pvp'er 1 vs 1.
So, my hoping was that the threshold for 1 vs 1 would of been like experience (your skill level) and soft counters so that each class can have a fighting chance 1 vs 1. Now, I understand that 64 classes is hard to balance because of the sheer number, but it will be equally If not harder to balance a class for group play. And that's part of the reason why specifically their saying 1 vs 1 will be hard and not group play? Maybe if they only had 8 classes , it would of been easier to balance them out? But anyways, we will see how it turns out.
With that said, I do believe that if their main focus is balancing group PvP instead of 1v1s, more work will be needed than if they focused on the 1v1s.
I might be wrong, but if they focused on balancing 1v1 combinations following that rock-paper-scissors idea, group PvP would be automatically balanced, or at the least made a lot easier.
That doesn't mean balanced group PvP isn't their main goal, it just means that balancing 1v1s first is more productive.
EDIT: @valerian I think that if they balanced the 8 main archetypes first and made those 28 (if I did my math right) combinations play out really well the rest would be easier to balance after, since the secondary class "only" makes each primary archetype stronger in whichever way its owner wants to.
Maybe they balance gear too? ESO's gear balances almost every other DLC.
Probably streaming EverQuest...