I'd like to lose a fight to a zealot...

[schatt]

I really would.

Don't want to be afk for this to happen. I'd like to try, not incredibly hard mind you, because this is a video game and fook effort, but try and lose none the less. Not horribly. Not in seconds, just lose. None of this chase them around the lake three times and die to dots in like an hour and a half nonsense either... but a good thirty second long brawl where I eventually come up short.

How can I go about this, outside of alt-tabbing to watch Zero Punctuation while standing near a Destro warcamp? I've got a shaman who's killed the odd bright wizard or two in a solo fight and a warrior priest who's stomped mudholes into witch elves... but I've never seen nor heard of a phenomenon like the one I'm asking for ever happen.

We'll say both would need to be r40rr40. Nothing too fancy gear-wise, standard devestator and 'epic weapons' for everyone. Judgment to BaL and Inquisition to PtF for me and... well... whatever the hell zealots can spec for for them.

After that, I'd like to haul my witch elf out of retirement and get beat by an archmage.

Is it possible? If not, why not? Would it be a good thing? Would it be a bad thing? If so, why? I've been assured that this game 'is not balanced around one versus one combat' many a times but statements never seem to delve beyond that. As pithy as a one liner can be sometimes, I'd rather hear about how this makes the game better or worse.

[Aqe]

HOT/DOT speced zealot could probably do it.

[Tsalarian]

This is excactly what I have been suggesting. Even if this game has a rock-paper-scissor kinda balance, doesn't mean you should automatic win whenever you meet those classes you counter. Everybody should have a fighting chance - this would make the game much better imo.

[chemicalpoet]

I really would.

Don't want to be afk for this to happen. I'd like to try, not incredibly hard mind you, because this is a video game and fook effort, but try and lose none the less. Not horribly. Not in seconds, just lose. None of this chase them around the lake three times and die to dots in like an hour and a half nonsense either... but a good thirty second long brawl where I eventually come up short.

How can I go about this, outside of alt-tabbing to watch Zero Punctuation while standing near a Destro warcamp? I've got a shaman who's killed the odd bright wizard or two in a solo fight and a warrior priest who's stomped mudholes into witch elves... but I've never seen nor heard of a phenomenon like the one I'm asking for ever happen.

We'll say both would need to be r40rr40. Nothing too fancy gear-wise, standard devestator and 'epic weapons' for everyone. Judgment to BaL and Inquisition to PtF for me and... well... whatever the hell zealots can spec for for them.

After that, I'd like to haul my witch elf out of retirement and get beat by an archmage.

Is it possible? If not, why not? Would it be a good thing? Would it be a bad thing? If so, why? I've been assured that this game 'is not balanced around one versus one combat' many a times but statements never seem to delve beyond that. As pithy as a one liner can be sometimes, I'd rather hear about how this makes the game better or worse.

Yeah, it's possible, I pulled it off all the time in T1 and T2, but after that Z's just don't do enough damage or healing to hold up to WH's assault (of equal level). The closest I have ever gotten in T4 straight up beating a WH was a couple weeks ago in Reikland. I was leveling my Apoth. and using the merchant's gift to help me out. Then, I saw a guy in a red hat starring at me. I dropped what I was doing and starred right back. I managed to get him down to about %14 before he landed a couple quick blows to finish me off. It'd been a long time since I had ever gotten that close to downing a DPS class alone.

It is an interesting concept that a healer could, on a level playing field, defeat an assasin class, and I honestly don't know how they could pull it off without us becomig head for the hills broken. I also think, to some degree, that if they gave us the capability of being able to defeat you, it would eliminate your purpose and class role.

So, fundamentally, I don't think it is a possibilty, as cool as it would be. :b

[chemicalpoet]

This is excactly what I have been suggesting. Even if this game has a rock-paper-scissor kinda balance, doesn't mean you should automatic win whenever you meet those classes you counter. Everybody should have a fighting chance - this would make the game much better imo.

I agree, it would, but this isn't Virtua Fighter or a very honed PvP game in general.

However, say this game was very leveled between classes, which it probably never will be, certain variables throughout battles would dictate what would have after what, when, and where instead of just having the sheer advantage over class Y, but would that translate well in an ORvR setting? There lies the only thing that prevents me to think that this idea would ever be a possibility IMO.

[Kanggaxx]

WH are simply the best 1v1 class there is because of their class design. They operate very much on a take out 1 target asap basis, and this just so happens to carry over to 1v1. Asking them to be nerfed so that a Zealot can have a shot at killing them in a duel would directly nerf them to hell in all the other kinds of RvR. It wont happen and it shouldn't happen.

[Robert Paulson]

I really would.

Don't want to be afk for this to happen. I'd like to try, not incredibly hard mind you, because this is a video game and fook effort, but try and lose none the less. Not horribly. Not in seconds, just lose. None of this chase them around the lake three times and die to dots in like an hour and a half nonsense either... but a good thirty second long brawl where I eventually come up short.

How can I go about this, outside of alt-tabbing to watch Zero Punctuation while standing near a Destro warcamp? I've got a shaman who's killed the odd bright wizard or two in a solo fight and a warrior priest who's stomped mudholes into witch elves... but I've never seen nor heard of a phenomenon like the one I'm asking for ever happen.

We'll say both would need to be r40rr40. Nothing too fancy gear-wise, standard devestator and 'epic weapons' for everyone. Judgment to BaL and Inquisition to PtF for me and... well... whatever the hell zealots can spec for for them.

After that, I'd like to haul my witch elf out of retirement and get beat by an archmage.

Is it possible? If not, why not? Would it be a good thing? Would it be a bad thing? If so, why? I've been assured that this game 'is not balanced around one versus one combat' many a times but statements never seem to delve beyond that. As pithy as a one liner can be sometimes, I'd rather hear about how this makes the game better or worse.

It's deffinitely doable against a WH but alot of it comes down to player skill and if they get the drop on you. If you see them coming in on you Stun (if your specced alchemy)detaunt Hot Hot and make sure to keep detaunting.

Most of the time I can 1v1 Ironbreakers/White Lions np it's just a loooooong fight.

[Astral]

This is an interesting topic, and I was thinking about it from a different perspective recently: what if my Rune Priest was actually a threat to other characters?

Some weeks or months ago, my R40/RR40-65 healing-oriented (but not specialized; Rune Priests and Zealots cannot strictly "specialize") Rune Priest was able to actually viably combat most level 40 Destruction characters. Lately, this is only very rarely the case.

Maybe it was the weakening of the "effects over time" tree, and my abandoning of the line. Maybe it was Destruction players gearing more toward Elemental resistance -- 100% of Rune Priest damage is Elemental -- with the intent of combating Bright Wizards. Maybe it was players learning better how to apply debuffs and crowd controls. Maybe it was the global DPS boost patch. Maybe it was the armor set stat changes, both with respect to my character and others. Maybe it was the introduction of a plentiful array of +crit items. Maybe it was the popularization of mitigation-ignoring proc weapons. Maybe it was the cast time syncing, throwing off the rhythm of my faster casts. Maybe it was the massive Regenerative Shielding nerf, such that it now only resists 10% of armor piercing. Maybe it was parts of all of the above.
...at any rate, in recent weeks I've dismayed at the sombering reality: my Rune Priest is no longer a particular threat to any class, and will be fighting tooth-and-nail to stay alive against most competent level 40 opponents (except for Zealot and Shaman, of course -- we generally just pass by each other when meeting 1v1 in the open). Even beginning to throw out my well-mitigated damage is a difficult task.

An anecdote: my Rune Priest is pretty well equipped. Good wounds, toughness, initiative, willpower, and even a smattering of intelligence from set pieces. I came across a random unbuffed Witch Elf out in an RvR area on the way to meeting my group. I initiated the combat. The one Rune of Immolation -- a 15 second DoT that ticks six times -- that I had time to cast was hitting the Witch Elf for 19 (46 resisted). It was at this time I realized that the rock-paper-scissors design of this game had come to utter fruition. Victory was determined long before the Witch Elf and I crossed paths. I certainly won't survive indefinitely against any Witch Elf manned by a breathing player, and I certainly won't even scratch any opponent that mitigates 70% of my damage. That level of mitigation is not a tall order, either: it equates to about 900 of the relevant resist stat. That's four rings with +100, a cloak with +100, a belt with +70, and a set bonus. No need to even use a talisman slot on it.

Of course the game isn't designed to widely facilitate 1v1 combat, of course the game isn't balanced in the slightest around around 1v1 combat, and of course it will never be a concern to the developers. Still, the stringent rock-paper-scissors operation -- so adeptly characterized by a Witch Elf vs. Archmage/Rune Priest matchup -- does not lend toward stimulating combat. If victory or defeat is all-but-assured assuming equal competencies and circumstances, then we might as well all be PvEing against the static and unchanging mobscape.

Am I just a whiner who wants to beat everyone? I don't think so. But I would like to be able to put up a decent fight, and unless I imagined it there was a period of time in the game when I could. Oh well. Maybe some day we, as a community of developers and players, will wean ourselves off the easy answer of rock-paper-scissors.

[athropos]

We'll say both would need to be r40rr40. Nothing too fancy gear-wise, standard devestator and 'epic weapons' for everyone. Judgment to BaL and Inquisition to PtF for me and... well... whatever the hell zealots can spec for for them.

When I saw the title of this thread, before I actually clicked into it, I thought "hmm.. try a WH?". So when I saw that you WERE a WH, I'm now left scratching my head. Putting aside all in depth strategy discussion of the fight itself, you do realize that WE/WH both get a 50% incoming + a 50% outgoing heal debuff (which stack), right? There should never be any situation where a WE/WH loses to a healer in a 1v1, unless the delta in player skill is just tremendous. I try not to be arrogant about this stuff, but I'm going to have to drop a L2P bomb on you here, sorry...

[nerfbat]

Roll an AM then. Seriously though, if you want to 'lose to a zealot' in a 1 v 1 situation then why roll a class that has all the tools to destroy not only healers but most other classes 1 v 1? It doesnt make any sense.

This is a group game, and i'm sure if you go for a zealot that is being gaurded by a tank or a WE, or that the group turns around and ff's you, you will indeed die before you kill the zealot.

Not exactly sure how this fits into a forum about class balance per say.

[Astral]

The two posts above me, by nerfbat and athropos both clearly misread or did not read the original post -- in fact, they have the original poster's point completely backward, and I'll even quote two of their lines to demonstrate the issue to them:

There should never be any situation where a WE/WH loses to a healer in a 1v1, unless the delta in player skill is just tremendous.

if you want to 'lose to a zealot' in a 1 v 1 situation then why roll a class that has all the tools to destroy not only healers but most other classes 1 v 1?

This situation is exactly what schatt is taking issue with. He's not saying he can't beat a Zealot; in fact, he's saying that not only can he defeat a Zealot, the Zealot has no chance whatsoever to defeat him. He's commenting that the victor is determined before the fight starts, and that he doesn't consider that interesting gameplay.

I'll pose the question more clearly to both athropos and nerfbat and any others who would care to respond: do you enjoy the rock-paper-scissors mechanic as the determining factor for a 1v1 matchup? Is it compelling gameplay? Should a class have "all the tools" to destroy "healers and most others" 1v1? Would you think it more interesting if, instead of losing horribly to a Witch Elf, an Archmage could give it a good fight?

[Acaus]

Do zealots have detaunts? If so they can do what I saw a shaman do -

Throw all their dots and damage a bit with just a hot on themselves until they get a bit low hp, then throw on their detaunts dropping damage taken to nothing. Heal up a bit then get back to killing :P This, ofcourse, was horrible slow so the guy had to be very ignorant to stay around that long but it does happen apparently :]

[nerfbat]

The two posts above me, by nerfbat and athropos both clearly misread or did not read the original post -- in fact, they have the original poster's point completely backward, and I'll even quote two of their lines to demonstrate the issue to them:





This situation is exactly what schatt is taking issue with. He's not saying he can't beat a Zealot; in fact, he's saying that not only can he defeat a Zealot, the Zealot has no chance whatsoever to defeat him. He's commenting that the victor is determined before the fight starts, and that he doesn't consider that interesting gameplay.

I'll pose the question more clearly to both athropos and nerfbat and any others who would care to respond: do you enjoy the rock-paper-scissors mechanic as the determining factor for a 1v1 matchup? Is it compelling gameplay? Should a class have "all the tools" to destroy "healers and most others" 1v1? Would you think it more interesting if, instead of losing horribly to a Witch Elf, an Archmage could give it a good fight?

Re read my post, hell even reread the part of it you actually quoted. I KNOW FULL WELL what he is saying. He is saying he WANTS to lose. Now what i'm saying is that if you WAN TO LOSE to a pure healing class 1 v 1 then why would you roll a 1v1 specialist class?

Rock/paper/scissors does not mean you are certain to win, it means your class is set up to 'counter' the opposite archytype. Now in this specific case, the poster is not only the counter, but also the class in game designed to be a solo specialist. He has all the tools at his disposal to win that fight. He COULD lose it all the same if he was a total crap player and the zealot was alot better.

Now lets consider the classes where set up so a zealot could beat a WH 1 v 1 on a good number of occassion. How then would this effect group rvr? Iif for example my We popped from stealth and an RP had a 50-50 chance of killing me as well as having to deal with all your group mates beating on me as I try down you, its pretty clear in that circumstance that there would be 0 point in my class in terms of the group. This game is about group interplay not 1 v 1. And with a good group that zealot has a chance of killing you.

Please, please read through a post before you quote it.

[Tsalarian]

I would like to thanks Astral for this excellent post.
http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3104101&postcount=8

[Tsalarian]

Now lets consider the classes where set up so a zealot could beat a WH 1 v 1 on a good number of occassion. How then would this effect group rvr? Iif for example my We popped from stealth and an RP had a 50-50 chance of killing me as well as having to deal with all your group mates beating on me as I try down you, its pretty clear in that circumstance that there would be 0 point in my class in terms of the group. This game is about group interplay not 1 v 1. And with a good group that zealot has a chance of killing you.
You actually think you should have a chance to do much in the situation you described?
As far as I can tell, you alone attack a RP sorrounded by (5?) group members. You should die just about 100% of the time without killing the RP, unless the team is busy with something else (afk eating?).
So going from 1v1 to a 1v6 situation, you believe that you have rationally argued that a WE would be useless if a RP had a fighting chance against a WE? If you actually meant to describe a group vs group situation, perhaps you should have mentioned your own team.

[schatt]

Yeah, it's possible, I pulled it off all the time in T1 and T2, but after that Z's just don't do enough damage or healing to hold up to WH's assault (of equal level). The closest I have ever gotten in T4 straight up beating a WH was a couple weeks ago in Reikland. I was leveling my Apoth. and using the merchant's gift to help me out. Then, I saw a guy in a red hat starring at me. I dropped what I was doing and starred right back. I managed to get him down to about %14 before he landed a couple quick blows to finish me off. It'd been a long time since I had ever gotten that close to downing a DPS class alone.

That shield proc thing used to annoy the hell out of me. I guess it mirrors Emperor's Ward, which made my warrior priest just a wonderful beast at those levels as well. Those were fun times, nothing was certain and everything was permitted. I find myself rolling alts all the time just for chance at having something random and cool happen in a fight.

Before I went on vacation I rolled up an engineer and I'm out there booting around Nordland, when I come across a witch elf. Now, granted I was level nine and he/she/it was level five or six. Was probably a bit better off due to having a fair number of the rvr rewards as well... anyways, point being I lobbed a few grenades then soundly beat her to death with a wrench. It was pretty awesome and I had a huge smile on my face. Then I realized in a few levels that would never happen again. Ever.

It is an interesting concept that a healer could, on a level playing field, defeat an assasin class, and I honestly don't know how they could pull it off without us becomig head for the hills broken. I also think, to some degree, that if they gave us the capability of being able to defeat you, it would eliminate your purpose and class role.

I'm not sure it would eliminate the purpose of my career or it's role. I'd imagine a great deal of it would have to do with spec in some ways, but I'm not sure it would really harm the class or my playing experience all that much. I like surprises. I enjoy staring at my monitor looking at the rez counter wondering how all that just happened.

For the most part, I enjoy the unfair fight and if anything I prefer them. Two on one? Sign me up! Target at half health... win! I spend most of time flanking another character and dumping on whatever target they're beating on speeding up the 'time to dead' factor considerably. The thing of it is, I have to think about whether or not the fight is fair... with certain classes it's just a forgone conclusion. Really takes a great deal of the fun out of it.

So, fundamentally, I don't think it is a possibilty, as cool as it would be. :b

Yea, I guess so. Kind of a shame really.

[nerfbat]

You actually think you should have a chance to do much in the situation you described?
As far as I can tell, you alone attack a RP sorrounded by (5?) group members. You should die just about 100% of the time without killing the RP, unless the team is busy with something else (afk eating?).
So going from 1v1 to a 1v6 situation, you believe that you have rationally argued that a WE would be useless if a RP had a fighting chance against a WE? If you actually meant to describe a group vs group situation, perhaps you should have mentioned your own team.

WE's are always ff'd down first by good enemies. Hell even by pugs they are ff'd as BW's hate them, tanks know they kill healers, and most healers scream in spatial to do so. So WE's tend to come under more intense fire then any other prof, especially those that are noted as good players. Now on the flip side in pugs WE's virtually never recieve heals because they are out of line of sight, too far away from healers or simply becuase healers feel they die to fast to even bother healing in the first place. So ill reiterate, in group play WE's 99% of the time find themselves getting ffd whilst far from their own team. Cant they take 1 v 6 no ofc not, can sometime they get a squishy down if those 6 (or 1 it only takes on guard to stop a WE) dont react fast enough..sometimes.

You seem to either underestimate how hard it is to play a WE, either that or your seriously misjudging how balance is set up in this game. Increasing the difficulty in killing a mob in 1 v 1 increases the difficulty of killing that mob in a team game exponentially for a prof like a WE.

Tell you what, you can have the chance to take out WE's 1 v 1 as an RP when WE's get the added ability to heal and rez their group mates :rolleyes:

[Astral]

Re read my post, hell even reread the part of it you actually quoted. I KNOW FULL WELL what he is saying. He is saying he WANTS to lose. Now what i'm saying is that if you WAN TO LOSE to a pure healing class 1 v 1 then why would you roll a 1v1 specialist class?

Looking over your first response, I should not have lumped you together with athropos, who did indeed seem to miss the original point entirely. You perhaps did not miss it, rather your quote was a good illustrant to athropos' remarks; the Witch Hunter and Witch Elves do indeed have all the tools necessary to defeat or give good combat to most every class in the game. Most classes don't have that array of tools, and the 1v1 experience largely comes down to a matter of rock-paper-scissors.

[Marklarg]

I'd still rather prefer that you WIN your 1 v 1 fight and the game try to stay balanced in a group vs. group setting. WH's and WE's have anti-healer tools specifically to be able to take them down in group play while they are supported. The supports job is to keep them up. Just because with no support you suddenly excel at taking them down 1 v 1 doesn't mean anything is wrong. There is something they can do. They can start rolling with a group when they play and make some friends/guild friends in the game. It's a group game so I tend to roll with 4-6 players with a good setup on ventrilo and leveling up becomes easier, scenarios at any level we roflstomp, and in RvR unless zerged we enjoy it too. Not that we dislike competition we would welcome another organized group.

But if every healer could beat a squishy melee DPS 1 v 1 (not saying auto-win just saying if it comes down to player skill). Then there survivability or DPS would have to be boosted a bit and you'd see an abundance of healers. Playing a healer vs. healer game where > 5 people die is very boring. Although it does patent stats and boost epeens

[Callibys]

When I played my zealot, I was able to take any WH that came at me, but only in T2 and under. I killed a 21 when I was at 17, he just didnt feel like running, I guess (could have easily done it.) The secret, as others had mentioned was dots/hots and detaunts. Lots of detaunts. Embrace the Warp. Stuff like that when used during a WHs burst, all the while throwing hots on yourself. When the burst slows for AP regen, throw your instant nukes + dots and then reapply detaunt before his next round of pain. It takes FOREVER even at the lower levels, but its doable unless they decide to run.

As soon as I got him to T3, I rerolled Order and never looked back, so I cant comment on anything higher. Id assume their dps continues to drop in usefulness more and more based on how it was going through to 22. That makes them basically healbots and resist debuffers. But they still have more survivability than archmages, which is even sadder.

[Ascent]

I also think, to some degree, that if they gave us the capability of being able to defeat you, it would eliminate your purpose and class role.It's a role poorly suited to MMOs. It should be removed. Stealth class in any MMO should be forced into jumping targets already at 50% or less.

Stealth classes should be high CC, moderate survivability, low to moderate DPS.

Not low to moderate survivability, high DPS, and moderate to high CC (depending on the game).

High DPS and stealth are difficult to balance, and invariably throw balance in the rest of the game out of whack.

Now lets consider the classes where set up so a zealot could beat a WH 1 v 1 on a good number of occassion. How then would this effect group rvr? Iif for example my We popped from stealth and an RP had a 50-50 chance of killing me as well as having to deal with all your group mates beating on me as I try down you, its pretty clear in that circumstance that there would be 0 point in my class in terms of the group. This game is about group interplay not 1 v 1. And with a good group that zealot has a chance of killing you.Actually, the point is that you would need to work with the team, the same as every other career.

[nerfbat]

It's a role poorly suited to MMOs. It should be removed. Stealth class in any MMO should be forced into jumping targets already at 50% or less.

Stealth classes should be high CC, moderate survivability, low to moderate DPS.

Not low to moderate survivability, high DPS, and moderate to high CC (depending on the game).

High DPS and stealth are difficult to balance, and invariably throw balance in the rest of the game out of whack.

Actually, the point is that you would need to work with the team, the same as every other career.

WE's do need to work in coordination with a team in group play, the same as every career. Can't see any reasoning behind that part frankly. If you feel the interplay of every class i relation to the team needs to be exactly the same though..well thats obviously a bit off kilter as the only way to do that would to be make everyone exactly the same... Halo anyone?

As for the trouble with stealth, well no, balancing spike dmg with stealth is not hard as the stealthing class has virtually no survivabilty and the targets that their spike damage can most effectively hit are those that stand in the midst of their team mates guarded by them. The stealthing class is away from tis team member and thus is more open to being killed.

This thread is about 1 v 1 between a healing class and a healer killer class. Its pretty clear how it should play out. What is alarming is that people seem to believe in someway that A) this game is based around 1 v 1, and B) that by altering how classes work against each other will somehow magically not alter how they compete in a group situation.

If the thread was 'i'd love for it that a zealot could survive and kill me whilst in group play (ala scens or oRvR)' then it would be diferent. Ofc we all know that the fact of the matter is as a stealth class you are likely to be dropped on your behind when trying to take down a healer in a good group.

PS, saying stealth classes should be high cc, moderate survivability and low dps is just insane. Stealth makes up for having low survivability and having no ranged abilities. It ets you into a position. Once out of stealth you have low survivability and thus need high damage to do anything. Adding more armour and reducing damage = a totaly dif class and I for one like some variety in a game. Oh and saying more cc...the last thing this game needs is more cc.

[Torjok]

How to lose to a Zealot in one easy step:

1. Continually attack a target that the Zealot is healing while it pounds on you.

The Zealot is arguably the worst 1v1 Destruction class in the game, but that doesn't really matter at all because no sane Zealot is going to try and take an opponent on by himself.

I'm also amused that you're posting this on an account flagged as a Witch Hunter, which is arguably the BEST 1v1 class Order in the game lol.

Sure, I'd love an overall increase in Zealot damage because my only T4 character is a Zealot and I'd love to be able to kill opponents with him. Ultimately though, this is a team game and I've never struggled to find tanks and DPS players players to party with whenever I want to PvP.

[Powerranger]

WE's are always ff'd down first by good enemies. Hell even by pugs they are ff'd as BW's hate them, tanks know they kill healers, and most healers scream in spatial to do so. So WE's tend to come under more intense fire then any other prof, especially those that are noted as good players. Now on the flip side in pugs WE's virtually never recieve heals because they are out of line of sight, too far away from healers or simply becuase healers feel they die to fast to even bother healing in the first place. So ill reiterate, in group play WE's 99% of the time find themselves getting ffd whilst far from their own team. Cant they take 1 v 6 no ofc not, can sometime they get a squishy down if those 6 (or 1 it only takes on guard to stop a WE) dont react fast enough..sometimes.

You seem to either underestimate how hard it is to play a WE, either that or your seriously misjudging how balance is set up in this game. Increasing the difficulty in killing a mob in 1 v 1 increases the difficulty of killing that mob in a team game exponentially for a prof like a WE.

Tell you what, you can have the chance to take out WE's 1 v 1 as an RP when WE's get the added ability to heal and rez their group mates :rolleyes:

Sorry but i cant hold myself and must say : Bad player is bad.

1st playing a WE is not hard.

Pick ur target
think about the combo
keep an eye on the battlefield
drop AoE detaunt
time ur throat slitter / heart seaker / both

OR the way most WE forget about ... play as a team ?!?

Got a WE myself and i do not get into those kind of situations , because im not thinking i should be ABLE to do so nor the class is designed to be the "WTFPWNZOR U ALLZ WITHOUT TEAM 1v10000"

Sadly we got a lot of no-brainers and tunnelminded people here on these forums.

It takes some skill to play a WE but to say it is hard ?

Roll a Tank / Healer then u may use this argument , otherwise nope ...

Dont want to insult u nor flame u , but i had to respond to that kind of post in that way.

@OP

Loosing a fight against the class that ur class is supposed to be the "counter" is an interesting idea.
I will ask u a question instead of answering right now ( later then )
Should u be able to win a fight 1v1 against ur "counter" ?

[nerfbat]

Sorry but i cant hold myself and must say : Bad player is bad.

1st playing a WE is not hard.

Pick ur target
think about the combo
keep an eye on the battlefield
drop AoE detaunt
time ur throat slitter / heart seaker / both

OR the way most WE forget about ... play as a team ?!?

Got a WE myself and i do not get into those kind of situations , because im not thinking i should be ABLE to do so nor the class is designed to be the "WTFPWNZOR U ALLZ WITHOUT TEAM 1v10000"

Sadly we got a lot of no-brainers and tunnelminded people here on these forums.

It takes some skill to play a WE but to say it is hard ?

Roll a Tank / Healer then u may use this argument , otherwise nope ...

Dont want to insult u nor flame u , but i had to respond to that kind of post in that way.

@OP

Loosing a fight against the class that ur class is supposed to be the "counter" is an interesting idea.
I will ask u a question instead of answering right now ( later then )
Should u be able to win a fight 1v1 against ur "counter" ?

Oh dear the old l2p adage. Actually I get ff'd because im good at my class, I gave up trying to wtfpwn solo zerg healers/bws around oh level 4. Now its pointless arguing about it because simply unless you come to Izor and see for yourself then frankly you have no idea as to how I play. Lets leave the kiddy comments for the other boards and try keep this area constructive eh ;)

As for finding WE 'hard' well at times it can be but its not that difficult no, but then none of the profs (or any mmos for that matter) are. I have a healer btw, and I spend alot of my time as a guild leader keeping a team running smoothly in pvp and that is done by me having good knowledge of the roles of each class and their respective issues.

Now if your not getting focus fired then that may just be because the enemy doesnt see you as a threat. But then I would be foolish to base an assumption on how well someone plays upon one post wouldnt I? ;)

Lets keeps to the topic shall we, I stand by the fact that altering classes around a 1 v 1 situation is bad and will ultimately have an effect on group interplay, theres no way it cannot.

[Powerranger]

Oh dear the old l2p adage. Actually I get ff'd because im good at my class, I gave up trying to wtfpwn solo zerg healers/bws around oh level 4. Now its pointless arguing about it because simply unless you come to Izor and see for yourself then frankly you have no idea as to how I play. Lets leave the kiddy comments for the other boards and try keep this area constructive eh ;)

As for finding WE 'hard' well at times it can be but its not that difficult no, but then none of the profs (or any mmos for that matter) are. I have a healer btw, and I spend alot of my time as a guild leader keeping a team running smoothly in pvp and that is done by me having good knowledge of the roles of each class and their respective issues.

Now if your not getting focus fired then that may just be because the enemy doesnt see you as a threat. But then I would be foolish to base an assumption on how well someone plays upon one post wouldnt I? ;)

Lets keeps to the topic shall we, I stand by the fact that altering classes around a 1 v 1 situation is bad and will ultimately have an effect on group interplay, theres no way it cannot.

Now i wouldnt call a pocket healer playing as a team.
I did not mention that especially U SHOULD l2P but a bunch of WE using this argument like : AMAGAWD THEY FF ME SO BAD CAUSE SO SKILLED AND EVUL

And this is rly getting on my nerves slowly.

Its fine that ur a guild leader an read other classes forums where misinformed people and whiners spread "information" around OR u rly think about balance itself .. nevermind.

Increase of E-PEEN incoming : Im a r40mara rr46 3rd in the killing blow charts , 1st on my realm (2 bright wizards above me ) should i be proud ? no its not interesting.

However lets get back to topic and stop qouteing eachother , i just wanted to have the last word :P

[TzuDevil]

This is a nice vid of an Archmage... takes out a WE 1v1 in it...

http://www.vimeo.com/2155039

Cheers!

[amobius]

This is a nice vid of an Archmage... takes out a WE 1v1 in it...

http://www.vimeo.com/2155039

Cheers!

He took zero damage in the beginning, did that WE just decide not to use throwing knifes or something. Can't really see that clearly.

[athropos]

Looking over your first response, I should not have lumped you together with athropos, who did indeed seem to miss the original point entirely. You perhaps did not miss it, rather your quote was a good illustrant to athropos' remarks; the Witch Hunter and Witch Elves do indeed have all the tools necessary to defeat or give good combat to most every class in the game. Most classes don't have that array of tools, and the 1v1 experience largely comes down to a matter of rock-paper-scissors.

I did miss the point of the first post, heh. Was going on 2 hours sleep and wasn't really paying attention as I was enjoying my morning coffee.

HOWEVER... The gist of my reply still stands (even through turning the argument on its head): A WH/WE, specced properly, and with equal player skill and gear, should virtually never lose to a healer in a 1v1 situation in the wild. It absolutely goes against the necessary tenets of R-P-S class balance between archetypes. Those classes are designed to be able to destroy a single soft target even with a reasonable number of other enemies nearby, possibly supporting them defensively. They have to be able to do that. If they couldn't, the viability of the assassin archetype would be null and void. So, take away all of the friendly support to your intended soft target, put them all by their lonesome out in an RVR lake, and sic that very same assassin on them... it's not a mystery what should (and will) happen.

[schatt]

I'm also amused that you're posting this on an account flagged as a Witch Hunter, which is arguably the BEST 1v1 class Order in the game lol.

No arguments there. It just gets to the point of being so utterly rote as to become somewhat boring in some ways. Don't get me wrong, I love it when other players just sort of explode in front of me... but from time to time I wonder what the experience was like for the other person. Was it fun? Was it frustrating? Was it enough to make you log out and start playing another class entirely?

I actually started off with a shaman, because I've got this cheeseball squig/bolt thrower/man-eater table top army where I spend a ludicrous amount of points on my shaman heroes. There are times when a lowly gobbo with a spear and shield can, albeit incredibly rarely, take down a four hundred point hero all by himself.

It's that sort of ludicrous happenstance that's kept me interested for some twenty odd years as a player.

Sure, I'd love an overall increase in Zealot damage because my only T4 character is a Zealot and I'd love to be able to kill opponents with him. Ultimately though, this is a team game and I've never struggled to find tanks and DPS players players to party with whenever I want to PvP.

This is the part of what people are saying that I just don't understand in some ways. It's like telling a second row lock that his job is forever and ever to stick his head between the prop and hookers bums and nothing else. He may never touch the ball, nor score a try nor tackle anyone.

Even in football, there are times when everyone can use their hands. Point guards in basketball can still post up or rebound and centres can still shoot the odd three pointer if they feel like it.

I've heard repeatedly that this game isn't balanced for the lower tiers, nor is it based around one versus one combat... but that's sort of the time when the game shines and a two person brawl can go in any direction conceivable. I really enjoy that.

[amobius]

I am kind of enjoying this idea that we could possibly move away from rock paper scissors. Instead of hard counters maybe there could just be soft counters. By this i mean that, one class could have an advantage over the other but not have the fight be so one sided that its like mike tyson fighting a baby. I think soft counters is a good idea because it can still allow each archtype to fullfill their roll, but also lets player skill shine through a little more because you know in each matchup you at least have some glimmer of a chance.

[Arrelaine]

Runepriests are a threat to my sorc... I might die of boredom or run me to death because they are sooo hard to kill.

I hate you guys. Jeez, just die already.

On my zealot, I do die really easily to a witch hunter. I know they're supposed to be the anti-healer class, it's just that they kill me before I get my heals off on myself. :( With other classes I can at least run to the group to have them get it off me, but witch hunters I don't get very far, generally I try to run backwards just avoid the armor ignoring hits, but that doesn't usually work all too well.

[Ascent]

PS, saying stealth classes should be high cc, moderate survivability and low dps is just insane. Stealth makes up for having low survivability and having no ranged abilities. It ets you into a position. Once out of stealth you have low survivability and thus need high damage to do anything.That's the point. You're coming up with high DPS as the answer to the class' shortfalls, rather than designing a high DPS class around high DPS (see: Bright Wizards and Sorceress').

While plugging in high DPS might work for small-to-mid-scale group combat, that's virtually the only place it works. The combination of high DPS, stealth and moderate CC makes you overpowered in 1v1. The low survivability makes you underpowered in keep sieging and other end-game RvR.

At best, it's a class balanced around scenarios, yet even within scenarios it's only balanced for limited presence. Stacking five Witch Elves is as devastating for an Order team as five Bright Wizards was for Destruction. At worst, it's a class blatantly balanced around 1v1, and strongly suggests developer favoritism (of that particular class).

How these third-person RPG ninja classes keep finding their way into MMOs is a mystery to me, except when viewed in terms of appeal. So many players enjoy easy-mode stomping their enemy that a developer is insane not to design a class offering such a easy-mode experience into their game. I don't fault the developers so much as the players, because ultimately it's the players who rationalize these design advantages as their own skill.

@OP: Zealots might be a little more formidable if their offensive mastery abilities were functioning properly. Most of them are all kinds of bugged thanks to the shoddy targeting system and reliance on that stupid raven mechanic.

[jdela13]

An interesting concept to be sure. I am not sure how it would work though. Because if the class you are designed to beat can beat you then that means that both classes are fairly equal in what they do. However, when talking specifically about healing classes they have a huge advantage in being able to self heal so giving them the tools and damage necessary to take out other players may make them the best class by far.

This concept is more akin to what UO was or what Darkfall is trying to do. You do not have classes, but skills. So in theory anyone can take out anyone, but I would also imagine that you can give yourself specialized skills that make you very much like a zealot where you cannot do much against another opponent.

I guess in real life it would be like trying to play basketball against Lebron James. He has about a foot on you, so take everything else away and chances are he will still beat you 1 on 1 even if he was not great at basketball. Some things are just very difficult to overcome.

[Efertin]

This is a nice vid of an Archmage... takes out a WE 1v1 in it...

http://www.vimeo.com/2155039

Cheers!

He's exploiting the bugged Funnel Essence. Pre-patch it could be used without an AP cost or channeling and it'd still do its full healing, basically, it was an insanely powerful hot with no cost and a low CD, and the WE isn't that good either, as she didn't know how to strafe to hit with a throwing dagger snare even if the target's strafing too.

I could take almost anything with my AM if exploited Funnel Essence, but it's no fun to win through exploiting.

And to people arguing should healers stand a chance in 1on1, that'd just make WE/WH job even more impossible in huge battles, if they can do it without making WE/WH even more useless in large scale PvP, they can do whatever they want.

[Litholen]

and the WE isn't that good either, as she didn't know how to strafe to hit with a throwing dagger snare even if the target's strafing too.
Yeah, I was thinking that - not to tell a WE how to play her own class (since I've not played one past the start of T3), but she was pretty darn pants. And he was using the bugged FE, and some of the angles he's catching hits with Radiant Gaze from are pretty odd.

-L

[Ravtec]

i see no reason to buff healers dmg, if u use detaunt when ur getting belove 50% hp u can take out most classes that dont have healing debuff.

[cellardweller]

1 v 1 fight vs a healer either goes down one of two paths
1) the dps class overwealms the healer and they win
or
2) the healer throws a few dots on the thier opponent whilst healing away any taken. When the opponent gets to 50% hp, they casually wander back to their warcamp which the healer can do nothing about.

[jaydub]

i would love for my AM to be able to do anything against a WE. right now with 10 times the experience and better gear then the WE's i run in to. they can pretty much kill me. my only chance is to live till their AP is gone so they cant burst me. then i hope someone else is near to save me because there is no fighting a WE as an AM. hard enough just to keep your self alive for 10 seconds.

IMO if WE/WH are designed to kill healers the fight 1v1 everything being close to equal the fight should be healer dead, WE/WH at 50% health. the fight should not be one sided for anything class but it is. instead you take a WE vs an AM and the AM is dead WE didn't lose any health. so give the gimp classes something do defend agaist melee bedides a detaunt making us unable to hit them or it becomes a wasted GCD and WE can kill AM normaly under 10 seconds so for the AM the AM cant make one mistake or they die even quicker.

for everyone making the excuses, this is a team game or what ever you keep telling yourself to justify the imbalance. please just go away. the same canned response to every post about an imbalance is getting as old as people complaining about the imbalances. you dont offer anything to the conersation. go play an AM at 40 in rvr and then tell me something isn't wrong. i have one of just about every class they are all T1-T2 so i cant make judgment calls for every class but i have played other 40 toons and it is whole different ball game. i played a WP for the first time. first game i had 150k healing. second game once i realized how to play i had 350k healing as a WP being totaly inexperenced person to the class. i can pick up another healing class and in 30 minutes be better at that class then the one been playing for 3 months.... it is not the people playing the AM it is the class. my AM has 7400 hp 300 tougness 230 inti 830 WP i played a RP with 5300 HP, 800 WP 170 tougnes and 130 inti and was on the front lines most of the time in the thick of battle just enjoying not being fodder. i had to work just not to die but i was flaunting my increased about to survive. on my AM once someone hits me i become totaly useless.

one easy way to tell imbalances take one class make them have infinate HP and see if they can ever kill another class. take an AM make him imortal. he cant die but everything else is the same, gear, damage, set backs ect... in an average spec, lets say full one nonhealing tree and 50% up healing tree. most AM have full healing but we will give this experment a little extra. hell give the AM unlimited AP see how long it takes for an AM to kill lets say a BO.

i dont think i could ever kill a BO with unlimited HP and AP. we cant do enough damage to counter their self heal. it took me over 90 seconds to kill an AFK tank. i wish i could record how much AP i used something like that. my estimate is it took 2500 AP to kill that afk tank. it is just unreasonable.

[LeviathanXIII]

There was already a game that tried the whole "make healers offensive enough to be really dangerous - but still heal well enough that they're considered healers."

It was called Age of Conan, and the "nerf bear shamans, nerf tempests of set" etc threads were never ending.

So, now you know what happens when you give healers offensive tools too. People cry, and you wind up with one whole archetype with a pretty clear advantage over the others in most PvP settings. You really want that?

[Tiresias]

Healers in this game were touted in development as being more than healers. Don't believe me? Hit that second quote in my sig.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving healers the ability to heal well while doing damage. The drawback is typically that they cannot do both well at the same time and that they will not be as powerful in the role as a dedicated class or spec.

[nerfbat]

'There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving healers the ability to heal well while doing damage. The drawback is typically that they cannot do both well at the same time and that they will not be as powerful in the role as a dedicated class or spec.'

They are called DoK's and WP's. If you want to do damage and heal heres a novel idea roll one of those as opposed to a shaman or a zealot...

@jaydub. People quote 'group mechanics' because THATS WHAT THE GAME IS ABOUT. If you dont like that fact go play AoC where you can run around 1 shotting everything, or smashing out insane damage as a healer.

End of the day if you want a healer class that can do good damage THEY ARE ALREADY INGAME. The trouble is people seem to want to be able to do decent damage 1 v 1 when on DEDICATED SUPPORT healer. Which is fine I guess so long as the dps classes can by that token, get heals and rezzes.

[Litholen]

'End of the day if you want a healer class that can do good damage THEY ARE ALREADY INGAME. The trouble is people seem to want to be able to do decent damage 1 v 1 when on DEDICATED SUPPORT healer. Which is fine I guess so long as the dps classes can by that token, get heals and rezzes.
I normally find your posts reasonably accurate, if slightly impatient and unforgiving, but this post makes it clear you weren't around for the billing of the Archmage class when they first introduced it.

AM was meant to be an RDPS/Healing hybrid - like the Warrior Priest is a MDPS/Healing hybrid. Neither were meant to be as good general healers as the Runepriest. Same was true of the Destruction mirrors. Problem is that wheras the WP/DoK mechanic and abilities were built around this idea really rather well, the AM/Shaman were given too much healing (to the point where, in an ideal situation - read, Serpent's Passage with no enemy burst-DPS classes, and an opponent who doesn't know what focus-fire is - we can outheal a Runepriest, and one - count 'em, one - core damage-to-heal ability. We can spec for a second, which is comedically underpowered for it's 2s cast-time.

The AM/Shaman should effectively be a ranged version of the WP/DoK - the tradeoff being lower survivability than the WP/DoK pairing to make up for us working at range. Thing is, we're currently neither nothing nor something - and with our nerfed survivability, we're little more than an Ocampa instarezbot in a Vulcan crew.

-L

[nerfbat]

I normally find your posts reasonably accurate, if slightly impatient and unforgiving, but this post makes it clear you weren't around for the billing of the Archmage class when they first introduced it.

AM was meant to be an RDPS/Healing hybrid - like the Warrior Priest is a MDPS/Healing hybrid. Neither were meant to be as good general healers as the Runepriest. Same was true of the Destruction mirrors. Problem is that wheras the WP/DoK mechanic and abilities were built around this idea really rather well, the AM/Shaman were given too much healing (to the point where, in an ideal situation - read, Serpent's Passage with no enemy burst-DPS classes, and an opponent who doesn't know what focus-fire is - we can outheal a Runepriest, and one - count 'em, one - core damage-to-heal ability. We can spec for a second, which is comedically underpowered for it's 2s cast-time.

The AM/Shaman should effectively be a ranged version of the WP/DoK - the tradeoff being lower survivability than the WP/DoK pairing to make up for us working at range. Thing is, we're currently neither nothing nor something - and with our nerfed survivability, we're little more than an Ocampa instarezbot in a Vulcan crew.

-L

Actually I'm fully aware of the proported role of AM/shaman. The trouble arises when (as is the case in this thread specifically), there are RPs and Zealots asking for the ability to toe to toe a dedictated melee healer killer. This is inherently scewed.

Now to address AM/shaman. Well for a start, its clear that at least one of these (AM), does indeed need some loving, however this should be more along the lines of survivability. The trouble with the concept of rdps/healers is pretty evident that its would be very very difficult to not make them OP, especially when you consider the possibilities of their role within a group dynamic. Now its true WP's and DoKs have more dps and more armour. That being said, with armour reducing abilities, melee ccs and the fact that they are much nearer to the 'coal face', means that that extra armour is not tantamount to such a massive margin. Now when you consider that staying at range is an option for AM's (yes im fully aware thats thats not always possibe and cloakers can get to you, but ultimately you dont need to be in punching distance, whereas WP/doks to - aside from the OP chalices, and yes i have a dok alt).

The crux of the matter is that the op wanted to lose to a pure heal class as a pure 1v1 specialist. Now this is possible if there is a massive dif in skill level or by some remarkable stroke of luck. However with this game set arounds group interplay, the roles are very very clearly earmarked as to make the group ethic all important. Any change based ona 1v1 basis would have knock on effects for the group. Ultimately you CAN roll a WP/DoK if you want melee healers. And you CAN roll and AM shammy if you want range dps healers. That AM is in difficulties at the moment is undeniable, however 'balancing' it around being able to put out enough damage to nuke down a pure mdps is going to be an odd way to go about it. Eitherway if you roll a dedicated healer I commend you, you are vital to your team and are true support, being the lynchpin of victory, however the flipside is in 1v1 your going to end up dying more then not to a class dedicated to killing you 1v1, thats the way it should be.

[Litholen]

Actually I'm fully aware of the proported role of AM/shaman. The trouble arises when (as is the case in this thread specifically), there are RPs and Zealots asking for the ability to toe to toe a dedictated melee healer killer. This is inherently scewed.
Amen to that. I've never wanted the ability to beat a WE - just the same survivability as other clothies.

The trouble with the concept of rdps/healers is pretty evident that its would be very very difficult to not make them OP, especially when you consider the possibilities of their role within a group dynamic.
Not as hard as you might think. Approaching it logically, the pairing would just need some of it's pure heals reduced, and some of it's DPS spells given a healing component. So long as it's overall performance matches that of the DoK and WP, it's not going to be OP relative to them - whether they're OP relative to everyone else is an open question, but personally I think they have perfect balance. And if they nerf my DoK alt, after nerfing my AM main, I'm going to consider myself a jinx to all classes I play and reroll WE just for spite ;)

Now when you consider that staying at range is an option for AM's (yes im fully aware thats thats not always possibe and cloakers can get to you, but ultimately you dont need to be in punching distance, whereas WP/doks to - aside from the OP chalices, and yes i have a dok alt).
It depends on perspective. In custom-built scenarios like SP or PG, range is a real advantage because LoS is constantly available. But in most oRvR, any keep siege (either attacking or defending), or scenarios like BfP, range is really rather overrated due to the game's stringent (and rightly so, no doubt) line of light rules, and the fact that siege weapon LoS, range and effectiveness, while believable, is chronic.

To put it another way, I would welcome changes to the class that gave me the option to reduce the output of my big heals in exchange for Searing Touch (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9250) being made pseudo-equivalent to Rend Soul (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9554), and an increase in the effectiveness of both Transfer Force (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9241) and Balance Essence (http://www.wardb.com/spell.aspx?id=9257), even if they came with no survivability increase, simply because the class would then be capable of serving it's hybrid role.

That AM is in difficulties at the moment is undeniable, however 'balancing' it around being able to put out enough damage to nuke down a pure mdps is going to be an odd way to go about it.
Odd, but I suspect highly enjoyable. I'd happily remain as squishy as I am, with a nerf to both my specialised healing output and specialised DPS output, in exchange for more abilities that damaged my opponent while they healed me/my allies. It would make AMs prickly to your brethren. You'd still get the kill, but you'd smart for it, and we'd get the feeling that we were doing something proactive to defend ourselves, rather than punching our AoE detaunt and hoping our glitched Boon of Hysh fires in time. While we'd still need quick aid to survive you, we'd feel less completely helpless - it might sound silly, but it'd certainly make me feel better and, in a game you play for enjoyment, feeling better about losing makes a big difference..

Eitherway if you roll a dedicated healer I commend you, you are vital to your team and are true support, being the lynchpin of victory
Sadly, my dedicated healer is shelved until they fix the Archmage class. I love playing a healer - I've never played one in an MMO before Warhammer, and I think I've been missing out on a great deal of rewarding fun. I'm just sad that they put the carrot in front of me until I levelled to endgame, and then nerfed me with a big, fat stick once I got there, and it's made me ponder exactly how much the class fits it's description relative to the other hybrids.

in 1v1 your going to end up dying more then not to a class dedicated to killing you 1v1, thats the way it should be.
Agreed :)

-L

[Keriys]

Back in beta, before the Zealot harbinger mechanic was changed, I don't think I lost a 1v1 to anyone. Zealot's were probably a bit too strong then, but boy was it nice to actually feel like I could contribute to a fight in a way other than just spending 90% of my time healing and only occasionally throwing in a debuff like I do now.

Reductions in healer damage, healing debuffs, CC and people stacking resists has meant that if I'm stupid enough to try and take anyone on 1v1 now I pretty much always lose except if it's another healing class in which case we'd both probably starve to death before the fight finished.

[squigsinahole]

the witch hunter vs zealot fight makes no sense zealots are not meant to kill witch hunters are

[Pacperson]

Actually I'm fully aware of the proported role of AM/shaman. The trouble arises when (as is the case in this thread specifically), there are RPs and Zealots asking for the ability to toe to toe a dedictated melee healer killer. This is inherently scewed.

Now to address AM/shaman. Well for a start, its clear that at least one of these (AM), does indeed need some loving, however this should be more along the lines of survivability. The trouble with the concept of rdps/healers is pretty evident that its would be very very difficult to not make them OP, especially when you consider the possibilities of their role within a group dynamic. Now its true WP's and DoKs have more dps and more armour. That being said, with armour reducing abilities, melee ccs and the fact that they are much nearer to the 'coal face', means that that extra armour is not tantamount to such a massive margin. Now when you consider that staying at range is an option for AM's (yes im fully aware thats thats not always possibe and cloakers can get to you, but ultimately you dont need to be in punching distance, whereas WP/doks to - aside from the OP chalices, and yes i have a dok alt).

The crux of the matter is that the op wanted to lose to a pure heal class as a pure 1v1 specialist. Now this is possible if there is a massive dif in skill level or by some remarkable stroke of luck. However with this game set arounds group interplay, the roles are very very clearly earmarked as to make the group ethic all important. Any change based ona 1v1 basis would have knock on effects for the group. Ultimately you CAN roll a WP/DoK if you want melee healers. And you CAN roll and AM shammy if you want range dps healers. That AM is in difficulties at the moment is undeniable, however 'balancing' it around being able to put out enough damage to nuke down a pure mdps is going to be an odd way to go about it. Eitherway if you roll a dedicated healer I commend you, you are vital to your team and are true support, being the lynchpin of victory, however the flipside is in 1v1 your going to end up dying more then not to a class dedicated to killing you 1v1, thats the way it should be.
ugh, if only that were true, unfortunately there is no 'pure heal class', sure, that's what many of the character descriptions might say, go play a RP or zealot yourself and you'll realise that the healing is no superior to the other healers. I think you're kind of missing the point of the whole thread, and at the same time making ridiculous statements that 'witch elf is hard to play', and looking back at your post history it follows similar thinking.:rolleyes:

[nerfbat]

ugh, if only that were true, unfortunately there is no 'pure heal class', sure, that's what many of the character descriptions might say, go play a RP or zealot yourself and you'll realise that the healing is no superior to the other healers. I think you're kind of missing the point of the whole thread, and at the same time making ridiculous statements that 'witch elf is hard to play', and looking back at your post history it follows similar thinking.:rolleyes:

Nice try at a flame masont you get +1 from me :rolleyes:

[Pacperson]

Nice try at a flame masont you get +1 from me :rolleyes:
was hardly a flame, basic comprehension skills -1 for you.:cool:

[jaydub]

nerfbat please go away, you proved my point exactly. you offer nothing to the discussion you are only trying to troll too get this thread locked. please stop.

we get it, you are a WE, you like where you are right now. you dont want things to change. that's great, now quite down and lets everyone else talk.

you totally missed the point, there is ZERO fight. if you want to go play a game where you mainly fight people that there is no possible they can win i suggest a good offline game with cheats because it seems like that's what you are looking for but keep clinging to the group aspect to make your self feel better about the imbalance between with the WE.

if this is a team game then why does WE excel at solo fights and works perfectly fine alone? why are they given the tools to take on any class alone armor debuffs for armored targets, silences for casters, healing debuffs for healers. looks like the WE needs to be removed from this team game. they dont have very many team abilities they dont need to rely on anyone else. so by your own ignorant logic the WE is the problem. not a team designed class. sorry it has to go.

[friedhohos]

I used to kill rogues on my priest/bloodmage quite a bit. Not all of them mind you, but unless they were good I wasn't dying. And I didn't mind dying to the good ones, they have my class counter and played well. That's how it should be, no class should be just a free kill.
Yes I understand it's a group pvp game, but having certain classes so dependant on a group to an almost crippling effect is underwhelming.
I can kill crap without a healer on my WE and on my Chosen, I can't kill much or tank anything on my healer, they are completely dependant on other people. I've seen a BO and IB go at it, but never see any rp attack me when I get knocked back into their area, we always just stand next to each other healing our teammates, maybe MAYBE we'll throw a dot on each other. These classes are so pitiful they won't even make an effort to attack each other most of the time.
The problem is the trees for RP/Zealot. They don't have a true tree spec, it's all a hybrid mess. They really need heal/kill/survive+utility trees.

[nerfbat]

was hardly a flame, basic comprehension skills -1 for you.:cool:

Well lets face it, it wasn't much of anything now really was it /pet. I thought i'd be kind given its the season and all, and try at least attribute something to your post :cool:

[nerfbat]

nerfbat please go away, you proved my point exactly. you offer nothing to the discussion you are only trying to troll too get this thread locked. please stop.

we get it, you are a WE, you like where you are right now. you dont want things to change. that's great, now quite down and lets everyone else talk.

you totally missed the point, there is ZERO fight. if you want to go play a game where you mainly fight people that there is no possible they can win i suggest a good offline game with cheats because it seems like that's what you are looking for but keep clinging to the group aspect to make your self feel better about the imbalance between with the WE.

if this is a team game then why does WE excel at solo fights and works perfectly fine alone? why are they given the tools to take on any class alone armor debuffs for armored targets, silences for casters, healing debuffs for healers. looks like the WE needs to be removed from this team game. they dont have very many team abilities they dont need to rely on anyone else. so by your own ignorant logic the WE is the problem. not a team designed class. sorry it has to go.

You had a point? It was cleverly hidden away then is all i'll say. But seeing as you tried to pose some questions this time around i'll answer them.

1. There isnt zero fight. Perhaps if your the kind of healer that doesnt detaunt, runs around with enfeebling on you and trys to outdps the WE as opposed to heal and get to your team mates then yes. There are however healers who survive long enough for their teammates to help. Considering your the one calling for the removal of a class i find it highly amusing that you mention offline games. Pot/kettle/black much?

2. WE excels at solo fights because of the role it plays, its s single target/burst dps killer. Now that being said WH's are even more suited to 1 v 1 situaions, and even then both can be defeated by good tanks.

3. Tools to take on anyone alone, armour debuffs (WH check), silences (WH check), heal debufs (WH check). Now if you take alook at all of the classes, pretty much all of them have some mix up of skills like this. As to why WE has these abilites, its because unlike a healer who can stand within his group, or a BW who can stand at range, the WE has to stand in his enemies team in the proximity of tanks more often then not. Oh and considering there are plenty of group armour buffs and armour increase potions, the WE can use those abilities on his/her main now not so squishy squishy.

4. Don't have many team abilities. Yes reducing targets heals, killing healers and casters. Closing down choke points. Drawing agro from their own groups healers...yes they are of no use to a group at all :rolleyes:

5. Your little cry of 'please go away' gave me a laugh. For a start in this thread i've not flamed at all (a small bit of banter with someone from my server aside). Perhaps though if you gave some tangible evidence as to why WE's should be removed from the game' then you would get more constructive replies.

Anyway you seem to have a fundamental lack of how group games, hell how any game works. if you feel that removing an archytype from what is essentially a rock/paper/scissors game will have no effect on group play then you need your head examining. If you feel RP's and the like should be buffed to have more dps or armour then where do WP's and DoK's stand, wont they in turn need buffing so as to ensure they are the dps/heal class? Wont that then mean rdps and mdps need to be buffed and hence tanks likewise? Which would then leave us back were we started.

[jaydub]

i can survive most WE to have my team kill them, i gear out full melee defense so i am not a push over, there is no reason why my AM has to have more hp and tougness then pretty much everyone but tanks just to not get pushed over melee classes.

i can survive only because of deatunts. in no way shape or form could live if i break detaunt and no way i can get close to even fighting a WE. WE should not be a trump card to another class. there is no fight. my WE fight involves. dispelling enfeebling , hitting knock back. running away from the WE. hit them with drain AP and use both detaunts to keep WE deatuned almost 100% of the time. but that is not a fight that is just trying to say alive. you still dont understand that there is nothing an AM can do to fight a WE. i wouldn't care if i died every time to a WE as long as i got to take them to 50%. no fight should be 100% to 0%. 95% of AM are not asking for dps. only for some defence to stop attacks agaist us. some tools similar to the ones melee have to take out casters. where are the caster disarms. melee can silence a caster yet a caster cant disarm a melee. why are some classes given so many tools to take down casters and casters have a tiny fraction of the abilities to counter melee.


@ #3, hurm so all these class have tools to work solo? but the AM is now allowed to do anything solo? we have to be dependent on others and other classes dont?. like i said i cant follow your logic as to why some classes get to be well rounded and others are not. simplying saying it is a team game doesn't fix the problem. it doesn't make people feel ok about playing a poorly designed class while others are are working normaly.


you didn't realize the sarcasm in removing the WE. it was just to point our that you are talking in circles, not makeing any sense. you say the AM vs WE is fine because it revolves around the team aspect yet your class and many others are well rounded classes and AM isn't. so the AM is lacking something many other classes have.

i am done, if you post again, i wont bother replying. you fail to realize that when one class can trump another 100% to 0% something is wrong. ooh well i did my best to explain it but you cant fix some thing.

[Astral]

Here's a question related to the recent thread of discussion in this topic: is the rock-paper-scissors design of inter-class combat balance completely broken if paper poses some degree of threat to scissors? Should a skilled paper be capable of putting up a sporting fight against a competent scissors, or should paper always crumple if it doesn't have several rocks around to help?

I suspect jaydub is on track for the most equitable solution with respect to casters against melee; don't necessarily nerf melee harshly, but rather give better survivability tools (effective cleansing, active mitigation abilities) or better passive offensive tools (see below) to the casters which can serve to give an MDPS pause when deciding whether to attack.

A self-only reflective effect would be a particularly interesting tool for healer-types -- at least the ranged ones -- to have.

Tzeench's Retribution - Blessing
Core Ability - Level 40
25 Action Points - No Range
Instant Cast - 7s cooldown
A vengeful aura surrounds you for 10 seconds, lashing out for 100 Corporeal damage at any enemies who strike you with an attack.

Now imagine the damage number is balanced appropriately and scales at some coefficient with Willpower. It's going to do significant damage to a Witch Hunter who blindly fires away at a Zealot -- but what's this? It's a Blessing effect? And Witch Hunters can Sever Blessing to remove it? Now we've got some actual interplay and back-and-forth to the Zealot vs. Witch Hunter matchup. If left unsevered, it can be kept up full-time at the cost of global cooldown every 10 seconds, and don't be fooled; this is not at all an insignificant price for this match. Similarly, the Witch Hunter will calculate based on his circumstances whether it's worthwhile to attempt to dispel the effect: it's not slowing his damage output, but if he has no support and does not estimate he will defeat the Zealot in a timely manner, it may eventually damage him critically. The cooldown is two seconds longer than that of Sever Blessing, so a single well-timed severing will produce a guaranteed period of downtime for the effect.

Since Tzeench's Retribution wouldn't scale with intelligence as does the rest of the Zealot's offensive arsenal, it isn't likely to begin a new era of melee-dominating Zealots. But now a 1v1 between this paper and scissors will be a real fight; it's still slanted toward the Witch Hunter, but paper can now provide at least some degree of discouragement to the scissors who presently has no reason to ever refrain from attacking.

[nerfbat]

'But now a 1v1 between this paper and scissors will be a real fight; it's still slanted toward the Witch Hunter, but paper can now provide at least some degree of discouragement to the scissors who presently has no reason to ever refrain from attacking.'

Once again this is in a 1v1 scenario. In oRvR/scens there IS already something to discourage WH's/WE's from attacking healers. Note before jaydub or anyone else starts crying about it, I have already stated that AM does indeed need improving. However to say all healers need more mechanincs to make 1v1 fights with wH's/WE's more dificult is, to my mind, something of a strange request.

Going over it again. Why would a support designated class want more abilities to 1v1 against what are commonly acknowledged as the pure/specialist 1v1 designated killers? If you are wandering about in a orvr lake on your own and you happen to get jumped on by your designated nemisis, then bar a frak accident or some major level in play skill diference, you are going to die. The reason this is the case is because these classes are designed to have some chance (note the word chance) of dropping you in the heat of a larger battle.

How can you say that increasing your abilities to counter WH's as a zealot will not massively impact upon their role within the group? Obviously it will do. You will certainly make them 'think'. The most likely effect will be that all the wH's/WE's will simply give up on trying to kill healers unless they are miles away from their group (which some of of the posters in this thread seem to be all the time :rolleyes:). That being the case healers die alot less, their teammates die alot less, and ultimately less players play WH/WE whilst more play...healers.

Whilst that is pushing the scenario its still highly plausible, the fact of the matter is you CANT alter dynamics between classes in a 1v1 situation without altering their group roles. If you can persuade me how making it so that healers can 'put up a fight' against WH's without screwing WH's in a group game then im all ears.

So far though its seems most are either having a little boo about being killed 1v1 by their nemesis class. Or are asking for things without either A) quantifying what a 'good fight' is and/or B) not giving a toss about the impact it will have on group roles.

PS, yes im sure its annoying to have someone talk of group interplay, but the fact of the matter is that its the real crux of the matter here, infact its the crux of the game. As soon as you start prating about and altering what is essentially a group game based upon 1v1s then you are going to destroy the foundations of the game itself.

[NightShade]

Ok, I'm still hungover from last night, and maybe even still a little bit intoxicated... but if I'm reading this right ----- LOL.

To those of you suggesting that a Zealot should be able to take on a WH in 1v1. Reroll. Seriously. If you wanted a "real" fight with a WH, you probably shouldn't have rolled one of the careers (Zealot, Shaman, Sorc, SH) which are counted amongst their primary prey.

Back to the 1v1 bit. First, it doesn't take any large measure of wisdom to recognize that WAR is predominantly a group-oriented game, and thus no career should be completely balanced around 1v1 situations. Second, yes, a WH will bend a Zealot over if they are caught in a 1v1 encounter - WTH is the Zealot doing putting himself in that situation to begin with would be my question. Roaming around an RvR lake by yourself, as a Zealot? I hope a WH does get you, if only to teach you a lesson in common sense.

The stove is hot, don't touch it.
The outlet is dangerous, don't stick a fork in it.
WHs kill Zealots, don't give them anymore opportunity than they already have.

That's essentially what a WH is, an opportunistic assassin. The more opportunity YOU provide them with, the greater the advantage they will have, and they will use it against you any chance they can.

Now lets touch on balance. The idea that a Zealot could even moderately contend with a WH on any level, especially solo, would basically, single-handedly, unbalance the entire game. Seriously. What are you thinking? While we're at it, maybe we should just give Zealots heavy armor, shields, and stealth... then there won't be need for these silly things called archetypes and balance because they would be the Captain Planets of WAR.

[GrumpyJester]

I fully, 100%, agree with the OP and several of the follow-up posts by Astral (I believe).

"Rock-paper-scissors" can definitely be taken too far. There's nothing fun about fights with a guaranteed outcome.

[Astral]

the fact of the matter is that [group interplay is] the real crux of the matter here, infact its the crux of the game. As soon as you start prating about and altering what is essentially a group game based upon 1v1s then you are going to destroy the foundations of the game itself.

Why would a support designated class want more abilities to 1v1 against what are commonly acknowledged as the pure/specialist 1v1 designated killers?

Have you perhaps stumbled onto the real issue here, I wonder? Why would there be what you term a "1v1 specialist class" in a game organized around group dynamics? Is it perhaps not the intention for Witch Hunters or Witch Elves to be a "1v1 specialist class"? If unintended, and if they are in fact capable of performing the role of a "1v1 specialist," then perhaps their abilities simply are too well-rounded to exist in a game based around group dynamics. Mythic's upcoming patch cycle with whacks from their nerfbat may allow us to further divine their intent.

Your remarks on 1v1 balance factoring into group balance are a divertive truism: yes, changing class abilities has the potential to change how the class functions in group combat. This is neither necessarily good nor bad; it is simply true.

The "good fight" that I and others have alluded to revolves around both participants having some level of control in the outcome of the combat. If a Witch Hunter has all the control in a fight against a Zealot, and the Zealot can only respond to the Witch Hunter actions, then I would consider that a poor fight. If the Zealot has tools to prompt response from or danger to the Witch Hunter, then we have the makings of a good fight -- one which is shaped by both players.

I don't think it's impossible to have "good" 1v1 fights in a game largely about group combat. The rock-paper-scissors philosophy does not preclude interesting 1v1 combat, nor does it necessitate that scissors has no control over a fight against rock. If you think it's unreasonable or impossible to have balanced, entertaining, and suspenseful fights in both the 1v1 and group spectrums, then such is the source of our differing opinions.

[NightShade]

Why would there be what you term a "1v1 specialist class" in a game organized around group dynamics? Is it perhaps not the intention for Witch Hunters or Witch Elves to be a "1v1 specialist class"? If unintended, and if they are in fact capable of performing the role of a "1v1 specialist," then perhaps their abilities simply are too well-rounded to exist in a game based around group dynamics. Mythic's upcoming patch cycle with whacks from their nerfbat may allow us to further divine their intent.

I don't believe WEs and WHs were designed with 1v1 in mind, since there's little to no 1v1 promotion on Mythic's part, by any means, in WAR. I do believe that they were designed to be self-reliant to a certain extent, given the nature of what they're required to do in most group-oriented situations - go after the backline casters/healers, which are usually out of sufficient range of their own support. I believe that this design, by default, allows them to excel in most 1v1 situations, giving them a superior advantage against some careers and giving them, at the very least, a fighting chance against others.

I don't see how this can be seen has having abilities that are too well-rounded to exist in WAR. We're actually quite gimp in larger encounters and we are much more efficient at what we do in smaller scale encounters. But then, this could be said of most any MDPS. DoKs are also an excellent 1v1 career, possibly even moreso than a WH in some situations, yet you don't seem to be arguing against their capabilities, hmm?

The "good fight" that I and others have alluded to revolves around both participants having some level of control in the outcome of the combat. If a Witch Hunter has all the control in a fight against a Zealot, and the Zealot can only respond to the Witch Hunter actions, then I would consider that a poor fight. If the Zealot has tools to prompt response from or danger to the Witch Hunter, then we have the makings of a good fight -- one which is shaped by both players.

And all Zealots have that option of so-called control. Whether they choose to take it and use it is another question. For instance, choosing to not roam around alone in a designated RvR hotspot is a good way of controlling whether a WH will even attack you or not. Aside from that Zealots have several CC options, particularly against melee, which can also allow them a certain level of control, if only momentarily. A WH, for instance, can only respond to Winds of Insanity.

I don't think it's impossible to have "good" 1v1 fights in a game largely about group combat. The rock-paper-scissors philosophy does not preclude interesting 1v1 combat, nor does it necessitate that scissors has no control over a fight against rock. If you think it's unreasonable or impossible to have balanced, entertaining, and suspenseful fights in both the 1v1 and group spectrums, then such is the source of our differing opinions.

It's not impossible, I've done it, though the possibility is determined by the archetype I'm fighting against, and moreso the career/spec of that archetype. Zealots do not fall into this category because I am specifically spec'd and geared and my career is designed to kill them with precision and efficiency. Thus, logically, it makes no sense for a Zealot and a WH to have a "good" 1v1 fight. Balanced, entertaining and suspenseful fights in both 1v1 and group spectrums are currently possible, but again, career composition determines how possible it can be, which is the entire premise of rock-paper-scissor, in a sense.

All I'm hearing, personally, is that you want Zealots to be good duelists and good group-oriented support when not even the career you're arguing against can claim both of those accolades.

[nerfbat]

Have you perhaps stumbled onto the real issue here, I wonder? Why would there be what you term a "1v1 specialist class" in a game organized around group dynamics? Is it perhaps not the intention for Witch Hunters or Witch Elves to be a "1v1 specialist class"? If unintended, and if they are in fact capable of performing the role of a "1v1 specialist," then perhaps their abilities simply are too well-rounded to exist in a game based around group dynamics. Mythic's upcoming patch cycle with whacks from their nerfbat may allow us to further divine their intent.

Your remarks on 1v1 balance factoring into group balance are a divertive truism: yes, changing class abilities has the potential to change how the class functions in group combat. This is neither necessarily good nor bad; it is simply true.

The "good fight" that I and others have alluded to revolves around both participants having some level of control in the outcome of the combat. If a Witch Hunter has all the control in a fight against a Zealot, and the Zealot can only respond to the Witch Hunter actions, then I would consider that a poor fight. If the Zealot has tools to prompt response from or danger to the Witch Hunter, then we have the makings of a good fight -- one which is shaped by both players.

I don't think it's impossible to have "good" 1v1 fights in a game largely about group combat. The rock-paper-scissors philosophy does not preclude interesting 1v1 combat, nor does it necessitate that scissors has no control over a fight against rock. If you think it's unreasonable or impossible to have balanced, entertaining, and suspenseful fights in both the 1v1 and group spectrums, then such is the source of our differing opinions.

Yes I have, the trouble is you still seem to be missing that point. WH is what one could term a 1v1 specialist class in so much as it is a hunter of specific classes, even more so then WE is. Now This 1v1 role is not as a set duelist, its down to it being a specific single target killer that has minimal traditional group support mechanics such as aoe lines, heavy armour for tanking or healing abilities. What you summarly fail to realise is that the '1v1 specialist role' is tantamount to against specific targets..namelly healers and casters. Now vs a tank the wH is not a specific killer, but 1v1 vs your class it is. As for mythic up coming 'nerf cycle' do you know what will happen? No and the fact your making assumptions based on possible outcomes that you have no idea about shows that you ae grasping for straws.

As for the group comment; the fact is your asking for changes without yourself saying how these changes will impact upon the group role, without seeming to care at all how they will. Now im telling you that it will clearly have a NEGATIVE IMPACT. What you fail to do is give any reason why this would not be the case.

W WH will have control in a 1v1 situation THATS THE POINT. Now that being said there are still many variables which will effect the outcome, you do realise ofc that how you react is more important then just the fact you can react. Once again, The WH by your token should have more of a connected role to its group in that case, so they should recive group heals and rez abilities.

If you think the current system removes any chance of entertaining fights then im sorry for you. But frankly its not the case ive found. Once again; can anyone show why a support class should have 1v1 abilities vs profs that have 0 support abilities. Can you show that altering it to be the case would not impact on group play? So far you havent.
What you seem to want is - Zealot = support heals and rezzes/1v1 survivability/1v1 dps. wheres WH should have 1v1 dps and er thats it.

And yeah I get where your coming from, you want to be able to go into an rvr lake on your own and have a chance of beating the class that is meant to be your arcytypes nemesis. By that token I want to be able to go into scens and throw out 300k's worth of heals to my group mates on my WE.

[Astral]

Can you show that altering it to be the case would not impact on group play? So far you havent.

This conversation is now long bereft of value; you're talking (poorly and disconnectedly) about specifics, I'm talking primarily about theory -- particularly, about how far the rock-paper-scissors design should stretch in terms of 1v1 combat. Some believe it should be a hard rule: rock always beats scissors. Others think it should be a softer rule: scissors should have the capability of turning the tables on rock.

I don't care about Zealot vs. Witch Hunter. I don't care about Witch Elf vs. Archmage. The specifics are all up to Mythic, and I'm not proving nor suggesting a thing. Reread the last paragraph of the original post for some insight.

[Ragnor]

Yes I have, the trouble is you still seem to be missing that point.

I think you're missing the point. The OP and others believe that no outcome should be 100% guaranteed just because of class makeup. This becomes even worse when that 100% guaranteed fight lasts 10 seconds or less. People rolling Zealots/AMs etc. expect to have a hard time against their counter, but don't expect to have zero chance at ever winning a fight against them. I can't think of any other supposed counters that win or lose with 100% regularity. RDPS can kill MDPS. MDPS can kill Tanks. Tanks can kill Healers. It's next to impossible for a ranged healer to kill ANYTHING, let alone MDPS. They certainly can't kill their supposed counter, Tanks, if the tank doesn't want to be killed. The tank can just run off at any stage above 50% health, if not 33% (plenty of time to make that decision) and live to fight another day.

Essentially what it comes down to is that in terms of Ranged Healers, R-P-S is horribly broken.

[athropos]

"Rock-paper-scissors" can definitely be taken too far. There's nothing fun about fights with a guaranteed outcome.

There is never a guaranteed outcome in a scenario with 12 skilled players fighting 12 other skilled players of equal levels. Same with larger scale ORVR battles with similar sized forces. THIS is the kind of PvP that the game is balanced around. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Start throwing in things like vastly different player skill levels (probably the biggest problem atm as we still have a lot of "PVP scrubs" just getting their feet wet with the idea of team based PvP games, rather than PVE or some random small group WOW arena), differences in itemization choices, class mixes on each side, possible disparity in character levels, etc, etc, and you unbalance the equation. Sometimes it's unbalanced pretty badly, and it's not much fun for either side.

Bottom line: you can balance a PvP game around large scale combat or you can balance it around 1v1 or 2v2 ("arena"/duel) style gameplay. You cannot successfully do both. R-P-S has to exist and it has to be meaningful. This is why you need to trust your teammates to bring abilities to the fight that you cannot. This is not a game of dueling, this is a war.

[GrumpyJester]

There is never a guaranteed outcome in a scenario with 12 skilled players fighting 12 other skilled players of equal levels. Same with larger scale ORVR battles with similar sized forces. THIS is the kind of PvP that the game is balanced around. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Start throwing in things like vastly different player skill levels (probably the biggest problem atm as we still have a lot of "PVP scrubs" just getting their feet wet with the idea of team based PvP games, rather than PVE or some random small group WOW arena), differences in itemization choices, class mixes on each side, possible disparity in character levels, etc, etc, and you unbalance the equation. Sometimes it's unbalanced pretty badly, and it's not much fun for either side.

Bottom line: you can balance a PvP game around large scale combat or you can balance it around 1v1 or 2v2 ("arena"/duel) style gameplay. You cannot successfully do both. R-P-S has to exist and it has to be meaningful. This is why you need to trust your teammates to bring abilities to the fight that you cannot. This is not a game of dueling, this is a war.
It's not one or the other. Tell me how large scale group PvP would be ruined if the R-P-S balance was changed from "Paper always beats Rock" to "Paper usually beats Rock"?

You'd use the same tactics. Assassin classes would still hunt healers, because they would still be best-suited for it. There would just be less guarantees, which is what many of us in this thread would like. An exceptional healer would have a chance to beat an average assassin. It wouldn't just be a matter of having the right classes, they'd have to be skilled as well.

[nerfbat]

It's not one or the other. Tell me how large scale group PvP would be ruined if the R-P-S balance was changed from "Paper always beats Rock" to "Paper usually beats Rock"?

You'd use the same tactics. Assassin classes would still hunt healers, because they would still be best-suited for it. There would just be less guarantees, which is what many of us in this thread would like. An exceptional healer would have a chance to beat an average assassin. It wouldn't just be a matter of having the right classes, they'd have to be skilled as well.

Ofc it would be badly effected. When there is a good RP etc in a good group its hard enough as it is to take them down in the first place. Start messing about with the mechanics to make it more based on 1v1 and it will be nigh on impossible to drop that 'good' player. As such the 'assassin' classes as you term them would simply stand back with their own healers all the time or reroll a diferent toon.

People seem to think this is WoW..it isnt. People seem to think this is a 1v1 game...it isnt, Now in any mmo the level of 'skill' involved in 1v1ing is low lets face it. Those games less reliant on R -P -S still have a heavy tendancy to rely on specific proffesion templates and how fast you can hit buttons to counter or just outpummle your enemy. Now there seems to be some thought that giving Zealots and other healers a set of skills to beat WH's/WE's would be a good idea and would be more reflective upon their 'skillz', but no, it wouldnt.

The reason pvp works in this game is that it uses a higher level of skill then most other mmos, now this is due to the fact that it is so heavily reliant on TEAMWORK. Its one thing to be able to press buttons really really quickly, its another to work in a coordinated team, utilising the right abilities at the right times, protecting your healers and engaing the enemy targets in unison. Thats why good premades wipe larger sized pugs.

You set the game around 1v1's and all that goes.

Thats why it ISNT just a case of having the right classes at the moment, its about having the right TEAMWORK. This thread is all about a healer class should be able to beat a healer killer 1v1. This is clearly not right in an R P S game, should they be able to last longer and perhaps get to safety? Well the good players DO that ALREADY.

If you stop this being an R P S game then the reliance on other proffs diminishes and thus the need for teamwork is reduced. Look at games like SWG, everyone can heal, everyone can do some amount of dps, everyone can tank. Now you get groups which are all just one or two profs, theres no such thing as a real tank or a real spike dps prof, and as such group skill needed is close to zero and pvp is a pile of *edit*.

If you want to go to that kind of system or some lame WoW 1v1 arena crap then yes, altering it the way some suggested would be an idea. I for one though would hate for that to happen and as such the idea seems intolerable to me.

[nerfbat]

I think you're missing the point. The OP and others believe that no outcome should be 100% guaranteed just because of class makeup. This becomes even worse when that 100% guaranteed fight lasts 10 seconds or less. People rolling Zealots/AMs etc. expect to have a hard time against their counter, but don't expect to have zero chance at ever winning a fight against them. I can't think of any other supposed counters that win or lose with 100% regularity. RDPS can kill MDPS. MDPS can kill Tanks. Tanks can kill Healers. It's next to impossible for a ranged healer to kill ANYTHING, let alone MDPS. They certainly can't kill their supposed counter, Tanks, if the tank doesn't want to be killed. The tank can just run off at any stage above 50% health, if not 33% (plenty of time to make that decision) and live to fight another day.

Essentially what it comes down to is that in terms of Ranged Healers, R-P-S is horribly broken.

Its not 100% guaranteed although ill admit its very very unlikely, as you yourself say in the highlighted part.

Now ranged healers may seem to have it hard but lets look at it. Tanks/rdps/mdps whilst having differing specific roles, all do the same job..they kill the enemy. Tanks either stay back and protect their group (and in doing so have to kill mpds), or they oram forward disrupting their enemy (and thus have to kill other players there). Rdps kill their enemy from range, mdps from up close. WP's and doks are given heals based on damage and kills done. Now where does that leave ranged healers? If by ranged healers you mean pure healing classes that say out of combat then it leaves them in this position...
They are the songle most important group member. You keep your team on their feet in a way that no other class can do. (if you just look at heals done over a scen then DoK's may match you, but their hots are not keeping your team on their feet after spike damage, they are simply topping up health with countless small hots). As your so important to the group your group will bend over backwards to protect you, and t he enemy will be hell bent on killing you. Now as the single most important class to the group, you have virtually no damage. This ultimately means that if you get jumped 1v1 you are going to go down. But then if you role a pure healer you should know this.

if you mean ranged healers to be rdps like aM's are supposed to then heres the trouble. AM's are gimped at the moment there no denying that, but even if you where fixed. If you get jumped from stealth by a melee class, as a ranged class your still going to go down thats the point. If you spot the WH from distance then yes you should be able to kite them to a good extent, unless ofc they out manoever you with terrain etc.

[GrumpyJester]

Ofc it would be badly effected. When there is a good RP etc in a good group its hard enough as it is to take them down in the first place. Start messing about with the mechanics to make it more based on 1v1 and it will be nigh on impossible to drop that 'good' player. As such the 'assassin' classes as you term them would simply stand back with their own healers all the time or reroll a diferent toon.

People seem to think this is WoW..it isnt. People seem to think this is a 1v1 game...it isnt, Now in any mmo the level of 'skill' involved in 1v1ing is low lets face it. Those games less reliant on R -P -S still have a heavy tendancy to rely on specific proffesion templates and how fast you can hit buttons to counter or just outpummle your enemy. Now there seems to be some thought that giving Zealots and other healers a set of skills to beat WH's/WE's would be a good idea and would be more reflective upon their 'skillz', but no, it wouldnt.

The reason pvp works in this game is that it uses a higher level of skill then most other mmos, now this is due to the fact that it is so heavily reliant on TEAMWORK. Its one thing to be able to press buttons really really quickly, its another to work in a coordinated team, utilising the right abilities at the right times, protecting your healers and engaing the enemy targets in unison. Thats why good premades wipe larger sized pugs.

You set the game around 1v1's and all that goes.

Thats why it ISNT just a case of having the right classes at the moment, its about having the right TEAMWORK. This thread is all about a healer class should be able to beat a healer killer 1v1. This is clearly not right in an R P S game, should they be able to last longer and perhaps get to safety? Well the good players DO that ALREADY.

If you stop this being an R P S game then the reliance on other proffs diminishes and thus the need for teamwork is reduced. Look at games like SWG, everyone can heal, everyone can do some amount of dps, everyone can tank. Now you get groups which are all just one or two profs, theres no such thing as a real tank or a real spike dps prof, and as such group skill needed is close to zero and pvp is a pile of *edit*.

If you want to go to that kind of system or some lame WoW 1v1 arena crap then yes, altering it the way some suggested would be an idea. I for one though would hate for that to happen and as such the idea seems intolerable to me.
Where have I said I wanted to balance the game for 1v1? Where did I say R-P-S needs to go? Why so extreme? RPS could be a bit less. A. Bit. Less. Nothing more, nothing less.

Having said that though, you're right. Allowing personal skill to matter more would likely reduce the need for teamwork by a similar amount. I'm okay with that, you're not. I feel there's plenty of room to move the slider a bit towards "individual skill" over "team skill".

That's a matter of taste of course :)

[nerfbat]

Where have I said I wanted to balance the game for 1v1? Where did I say R-P-S needs to go? Why so extreme? RPS could be a bit less. A. Bit. Less. Nothing more, nothing less.

Having said that though, you're right. Allowing personal skill to matter more would likely reduce the need for teamwork by a similar amount. I'm okay with that, you're not. I feel there's plenty of room to move the slider a bit towards "individual skill" over "team skill".

That's a matter of taste of course :)

Its extreme for the reason that minor tweaks 1v1 do have extreme consequences upon such a RPS game as this. Now a few things:

I dont think you genuinely want to effect WE/WH's at team game level and I believe your intentions in this thread are noble and as such I dont want you to think im aiming at you per say. BUT -

To say this game is group and thus not individual skill based is simply untrue. This game is based around group interplay..fact. Is group interplay base upon the individual components within the group..yes..fact. Now you may be a healer in group A, but the healer in group B could be 30 times better, why? Because he is a better healer, with the same toolset he still times his heals better, manages aggro better, is simply a better play.

The thing is this game has the scope for that, its RPS but it allows for player skill, everyone will acknowledge that...apart from bad players.

Now where does this leave healers? As before healers are vital to the group, more so then any other class. And good healers will not only do better for their group but they will do better 1v1. What you seem to be equating with this comment:

'Allowing personal skill to matter more would likely reduce the need for teamwork by a similar amount. I'm okay with that, you're not'

Is that personal skill equates to 1v1 outcomes...IT DOES NOT. And here in lies the problem. You see as a healer you could be 100x better then me as a player, but on that healer you have chosen to take the most prominant role in group support. On my WE I may be 100x better then you in that role, as single target opportunist killer. Now for that role ive chosen to forego alot of help in group play and have taken as red I will get squiched alot. But on the odd occassion we come into contact 1v1 in an rvr lake (something that lets face it should not occur alot) then by that token you are set up to lose. I cannot make as much impact for my team as you can, but 1v1 vs healers my job is to kill them, its the main role i fullfil for my team and as such if you happen to be in that situation you will suffer as the healer.

Group play does not mean there is an inherent lack of individual skill. But basing skill off 1v1 encounters will inherently effect group play. You see a top healer knows they are a top healer, they know they have the skill to keep their team alive. Someone who basis 'skill' off pwning 1v1 and thus comes on the forums asking for the ability to do so as a healer..is..missing the point.

[Luapo]

Its extreme for the reason that minor tweaks 1v1 do have extreme consequences upon such a RPS game as this. Now a few things:

I dont think you genuinely want to effect WE/WH's at team game level and I believe your intentions in this thread are noble and as such I dont want you to think im aiming at you per say. BUT -

To say this game is group and thus not individual skill based is simply untrue. This game is based around group interplay..fact. Is group interplay base upon the individual components within the group..yes..fact. Now you may be a healer in group A, but the healer in group B could be 30 times better, why? Because he is a better healer, with the same toolset he still times his heals better, manages aggro better, is simply a better play.

The thing is this game has the scope for that, its RPS but it allows for player skill, everyone will acknowledge that...apart from bad players.

Now where does this leave healers? As before healers are vital to the group, more so then any other class. And good healers will not only do better for their group but they will do better 1v1. What you seem to be equating with this comment:

'Allowing personal skill to matter more would likely reduce the need for teamwork by a similar amount. I'm okay with that, you're not'

Is that personal skill equates to 1v1 outcomes...IT DOES NOT. And here in lies the problem. You see as a healer you could be 100x better then me as a player, but on that healer you have chosen to take the most prominant role in group support. On my WE I may be 100x better then you in that role, as single target opportunist killer. Now for that role ive chosen to forego alot of help in group play and have taken as red I will get squiched alot. But on the odd occassion we come into contact 1v1 in an rvr lake (something that lets face it should not occur alot) then by that token you are set up to lose. I cannot make as much impact for my team as you can, but 1v1 vs healers my job is to kill them, its the main role i fullfil for my team and as such if you happen to be in that situation you will suffer as the healer.

Group play does not mean there is an inherent lack of individual skill. But basing skill off 1v1 encounters will inherently effect group play. You see a top healer knows they are a top healer, they know they have the skill to keep their team alive. Someone who basis 'skill' off pwning 1v1 and thus comes on the forums asking for the ability to do so as a healer..is..missing the point.

I completely agree with you on your points, but can you see where the agrevation is coming from, when most of our mastery abilities and item sets are all set up with some damage in mind.

We get this idea from mythic that we are meant to be a hybrid, but fall horribly short on damage to be worthy of an hybrid in gameplay.

[Ragnor]

Its extreme for the reason that minor tweaks 1v1 do have extreme consequences upon such a RPS game as this. Now a few things:

I dont think you genuinely want to effect WE/WH's at team game level and I believe your intentions in this thread are noble and as such I dont want you to think im aiming at you per say. BUT -

To say this game is group and thus not individual skill based is simply untrue. This game is based around group interplay..fact. Is group interplay base upon the individual components within the group..yes..fact. Now you may be a healer in group A, but the healer in group B could be 30 times better, why? Because he is a better healer, with the same toolset he still times his heals better, manages aggro better, is simply a better play.

The thing is this game has the scope for that, its RPS but it allows for player skill, everyone will acknowledge that...apart from bad players.

Now where does this leave healers? As before healers are vital to the group, more so then any other class. And good healers will not only do better for their group but they will do better 1v1. What you seem to be equating with this comment:

'Allowing personal skill to matter more would likely reduce the need for teamwork by a similar amount. I'm okay with that, you're not'

Is that personal skill equates to 1v1 outcomes...IT DOES NOT. And here in lies the problem. You see as a healer you could be 100x better then me as a player, but on that healer you have chosen to take the most prominant role in group support. On my WE I may be 100x better then you in that role, as single target opportunist killer. Now for that role ive chosen to forego alot of help in group play and have taken as red I will get squiched alot. But on the odd occassion we come into contact 1v1 in an rvr lake (something that lets face it should not occur alot) then by that token you are set up to lose. I cannot make as much impact for my team as you can, but 1v1 vs healers my job is to kill them, its the main role i fullfil for my team and as such if you happen to be in that situation you will suffer as the healer.

Group play does not mean there is an inherent lack of individual skill. But basing skill off 1v1 encounters will inherently effect group play. You see a top healer knows they are a top healer, they know they have the skill to keep their team alive. Someone who basis 'skill' off pwning 1v1 and thus comes on the forums asking for the ability to do so as a healer..is..missing the point.

If a ranged healer is set up to lose 100% of the time, then it follows that every other class must also lose 100% of the time in order to keep RPS balanced. MDPS should never be able to escape or win against a tank, tanks shouldn't be able to win against healers or ranged and should always be killed by them, and ranged should be killed every time by MDPS. It's not like that at the moment though, with skill allowing for a deviation from the outcome in most matchups.

[Teabageue]

Warning: I got kinda sidetracked.. Oops :rolleyes:


some tools similar to the ones melee have to take out casters. where are the caster disarms. melee can silence a caster yet a caster cant disarm a melee. why are some classes given so many tools to take down casters and casters have a tiny fraction of the abilities to counter melee.

you didn't realize the sarcasm in removing the WE. it was just to point our that you are talking in circles, not makeing any sense. you say the AM vs WE is fine because it revolves around the team aspect yet your class and many others are well rounded classes and AM isn't. so the AM is lacking something many other classes have.



I've really, seriously wondered about why casters are never given ways to remove weapons from melee hands.. I played a warlock in wow. My succubus has a freakin' WHIP!!! Whip... Disarm? IMPOSSIBLE?!? Apparently.:confused:

I'm sure you could give every cloth wearer in WoW and War a damn disarm on some kinda solid CD, and it would just have a side effect of making the MDPS "Eliminator" classes take solid skill to play. You worried about balance?? Add a diminishing return globally to disarms. No one likes to be chain anything'd. CC or otherwise.

A detaunt is one thing, a disarm is quite another.

So I'll try to sum up the inner workings of this post in a few bullets..

* People like having a chance, regardless of rock paper scissors.

* People like taking that chance away from other people.

* Being forced to rely on other players all the time is no fun. Healers should atleast have some kind of "Independent" feeling. Tis on a class by class basis.. Kinda.. (AM's seem to be really sad pandas)

* Balance is the most difficult thing to achieve in an MMO.. Especially a PvP oriented one. The developers had the best intentions when it comes to showing favoritism between side and class (Atleast I hope so, I kinda don't feel this).

* A robust testing program can be the forge for a fantastic PvP game.


I wish MMO's weren't so notorious for how long it takes to really nail class balance on the head (four years and counting for a certain one). Mythic really needs to make balance their first, and continuing priority throughout the lifetime of this game. Really test those changes being implemented before you implement them. Once your player base of R40 people really starts to blossom, offer a raffle among them for an internal beta-testing server (or more..), offering all classes at r40 ( <Only 3 picks though> ). You can even make it shifting, say the test lasts for a period of a month or two, and you can be drawn again after a cooldown. I'd encourage a huge betatesting guild being created.. Think of it like "Jury Duty" for class balancing, plus a "winning the lottery" kinda feel. You DO have to provide feedback. Mythic DOES have to ask good questions, and be open to all that feedback. Is it feasable? It depends on how much money is coming in, I'd suppose..

And there's my 2 brass coins.

[Ghostwind]

As a sorc I'd like to win a fight against an Order player who isn't afk (I might still lose if he's afk if he has decent resists). There is no R-P-S! Sorcs are easy targets for all classes.

I know, I know, L2P. I'm not an ace player but I do a lot better with other classes.

[Kaj]

This is excactly what I have been suggesting. Even if this game has a rock-paper-scissor kinda balance, doesn't mean you should automatic win whenever you meet those classes you counter. Everybody should have a fighting chance - this would make the game much better imo.


I agree 100 %.