The concept of "balance"

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > With respect to Scourge. I see the basic problem as being large AOE. Any **mobile** AOE should be small to compensate.

> > > >

> > > > As a example of a proper condi AOE one could look at [Kirin's Wrath] from GW1.(https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath "https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath")

> > > >

> > > > This skill hit's foes *adjacent* which is to say just beyond melee range. This for a immobile AOE. By contrast, the Scorge AOE is **mobile** and covers an area that is about 1/2 *earshot* range. The difference in power is absolutely night and day.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ANET would do well to crank the AOE down to about adjacent range.. and that would still be a little too much. Touch range would be better, given that it's mobile.

> > >

> > > It's funny how quick you are to call for nerfs to classes that aren't mesmer.

> >

> > First, I am not calling for buffs out of dislike of necro. Second, I am significantly slower to call for nerfs than many of those asking that Mesmer be crushed.

>

> I mean you did make threads calling for holosmith, scourge and soulbeast nerfs about two and a half weeks after PoF released. That was less time then we've had to digest bunker chrono.

 

Bunker Chrono has already underground multiple very heavy mid season nerfs, including one that took less than an hour. Alacrity has been cut to the bone and the specialization has been given to Revenant.( which is why I don't play a Chronomancer. )

 

Chronomancer has already been gutted. It's a matter of play skill at this point.

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > > With respect to Scourge. I see the basic problem as being large AOE. Any **mobile** AOE should be small to compensate.

> > > > >

> > > > > As a example of a proper condi AOE one could look at [Kirin's Wrath] from GW1.(https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath "https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath")

> > > > >

> > > > > This skill hit's foes *adjacent* which is to say just beyond melee range. This for a immobile AOE. By contrast, the Scorge AOE is **mobile** and covers an area that is about 1/2 *earshot* range. The difference in power is absolutely night and day.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ANET would do well to crank the AOE down to about adjacent range.. and that would still be a little too much. Touch range would be better, given that it's mobile.

> > > >

> > > > It's funny how quick you are to call for nerfs to classes that aren't mesmer.

> > >

> > > First, I am not calling for buffs out of dislike of necro. Second, I am significantly slower to call for nerfs than many of those asking that Mesmer be crushed.

> >

> > I mean you did make threads calling for holosmith, scourge and soulbeast nerfs about two and a half weeks after PoF released. That was less time then we've had to digest bunker chrono.

>

> Bunker Chrono has already underground multiple very heavy mid season nerfs, including one that took less than an hour. Alacrity has been cut to the bone and the specialization has been given to Revenant.( which is why I don't play a Chronomancer. )

>

> Chronomancer has already been gutted. It's a matter of play skill at this point.

Renegade having access to Alacrity has literally zero impact on Chronomancer's efficacy. Like, okay the theoretical flavor of the build is a bit diminished. It has zero impact on _any_ area of the game whatsoever.

[Meteor.3720]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > > With respect to Scourge. I see the basic problem as being large AOE. Any **mobile** AOE should be small to compensate.

> > > > >

> > > > > As a example of a proper condi AOE one could look at [Kirin's Wrath] from GW1.(https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath "https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath")

> > > > >

> > > > > This skill hit's foes *adjacent* which is to say just beyond melee range. This for a immobile AOE. By contrast, the Scorge AOE is **mobile** and covers an area that is about 1/2 *earshot* range. The difference in power is absolutely night and day.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > ANET would do well to crank the AOE down to about adjacent range.. and that would still be a little too much. Touch range would be better, given that it's mobile.

> > > >

> > > > It's funny how quick you are to call for nerfs to classes that aren't mesmer.

> > >

> > > First, I am not calling for buffs out of dislike of necro. Second, I am significantly slower to call for nerfs than many of those asking that Mesmer be crushed.

> >

> > I mean you did make threads calling for holosmith, scourge and soulbeast nerfs about two and a half weeks after PoF released. That was less time then we've had to digest bunker chrono.

>

> Bunker Chrono has already underground multiple very heavy mid season nerfs.

 

Yes. Signet of ether nerf has made chrono unviable and unplayable ... oh wait ... 2 teams with 3 chrono in mAT, chronos in most ranked games.

 

>

> Chronomancer has already been gutted. It's a matter of play skill at this point.

 

Just lol.

[will de grijze jager.6594]

It is really easy to solve the elite problem, at a line to the elite that will for excample reduction damage, if it is a support class like for druid. For tanky classes like chrono doing the same you Sacrifice damage for being tanky. How to solve the scourge problem, let them be support or condi focuesed, if conid focused lower the support by like -20% healing and stuff or if support again de damage reduction. If they do that for all classes they can balance the game because now we have classes that have it all see chrono.

[Abazigal.3679]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> With respect to Scourge. I see the basic problem as being large AOE. Any **mobile** AOE should be small to compensate.

>

> As a example of a proper condi AOE one could look at [Kirin's Wrath] from GW1.(https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath "https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath")

>

> This skill hit's foes *adjacent* which is to say just beyond melee range. This for a immobile AOE. By contrast, the Scorge AOE is **mobile** and covers an area that is about 1/2 *earshot* range. The difference in power is absolutely night and day.

>

>

> ANET would do well to crank the AOE down to about adjacent range.. and that would still be a little too much. Touch range would be better, given that it's mobile.

 

Frankly, this could look as the problem but i dont think that it. People were already dying to turret engis and DH. Dying to big Aoe circles will always happen.

 

The point is most likely that any mistake against a scourge ( sometimes it's not even a mistake) leads to having xx conditions on you, the most annoying one being Crippling making you unable to run away, and you bleed off point to death. Just remove that condition from scourge builds and this will fix most issues in 1v1 situations.

 

That being said that is from a 1v1 view. Let's consider the minimalist strategy possible. What's annoying is that you will have a FB + scourge mid, and a mesmer close + 2 rotating between( usually thief + holo). This requires you to have a similar setup, otherwise you won't be able to kill nor sustain to that..

[Obindo.6802]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> **Balance means:** **Any given class, whether "elite" or not, has an equal chance going into a 1v1 against any other class.**

 

No

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > > > With respect to Scourge. I see the basic problem as being large AOE. Any **mobile** AOE should be small to compensate.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > As a example of a proper condi AOE one could look at [Kirin's Wrath] from GW1.(https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath "https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath")

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This skill hit's foes *adjacent* which is to say just beyond melee range. This for a immobile AOE. By contrast, the Scorge AOE is **mobile** and covers an area that is about 1/2 *earshot* range. The difference in power is absolutely night and day.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ANET would do well to crank the AOE down to about adjacent range.. and that would still be a little too much. Touch range would be better, given that it's mobile.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's funny how quick you are to call for nerfs to classes that aren't mesmer.

> > > >

> > > > First, I am not calling for buffs out of dislike of necro. Second, I am significantly slower to call for nerfs than many of those asking that Mesmer be crushed.

> > >

> > > I mean you did make threads calling for holosmith, scourge and soulbeast nerfs about two and a half weeks after PoF released. That was less time then we've had to digest bunker chrono.

> >

> > Bunker Chrono has already underground multiple very heavy mid season nerfs, including one that took less than an hour. Alacrity has been cut to the bone and the specialization has been given to Revenant.( which is why I don't play a Chronomancer. )

> >

> > Chronomancer has already been gutted. It's a matter of play skill at this point.

> Renegade having access to Alacrity has literally zero impact on Chronomancer's efficacy. Like, okay the theoretical flavor of the build is a bit diminished. It has zero impact on _any_ area of the game whatsoever.

 

It's the principal. Alacrity *was* the special province of Chronomaner.. the reason for the specialization. Hence the name "Chronomancer."

 

Giving alacrity to other classes abrogated the specialization in my view. I don't play it in PvP, in protest... A useless protest I know, but that really hurt.

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"Obindo.6802" said:

> > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > **Balance means:** **Any given class, whether "elite" or not, has an equal chance going into a 1v1 against any other class.**

>

> No

 

Why not? Simply saying no is not meaningful.

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"will de grijze jager.6594" said:

> It is really easy to solve the elite problem, at a line to the elite that will for excample reduction damage, if it is a support class like for druid. For tanky classes like chrono doing the same you Sacrifice damage for being tanky. How to solve the scourge problem, let them be support or condi focuesed, if conid focused lower the support by like -20% healing and stuff or if support again de damage reduction. If they do that for all classes they can balance the game because now we have classes that have it all see chrono.

 

Yes, this is a basic mechanism of balance. Unfortunately, in GW2 right now just about every class can do everything. That's one of the big issues with balance.

[Chaith.8256]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > @"Obindo.6802" said:

> > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > **Balance means:** **Any given class, whether "elite" or not, has an equal chance going into a 1v1 against any other class.**

> >

> > No

>

> Why not? Simply saying no is not meaningful.

 

Why not? The same reason everyone else is saying.

 

- Game has no 1v1 modes

- Balanced 1v1s provably doesn't equal balanced 5v5s due to different utility/mobility levels

- Some classes do everything AoE vs. Single

- PvP needs to be balanced around 5v5

 

At this point, a simple "no" is sufficient

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"Chaith.8256" said:

> > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > @"Obindo.6802" said:

> > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > **Balance means:** **Any given class, whether "elite" or not, has an equal chance going into a 1v1 against any other class.**

> > >

> > > No

> >

> > Why not? Simply saying no is not meaningful.

>

> Why not? The same reason everyone else is saying.

>

> - Game has no 1v1 modes

> - Balanced 1v1s provably doesn't equal balanced 5v5s due to different utility/mobility levels

> - Some classes do everything AoE vs. Single

> - PvP needs to be balanced around 5v5

>

> At this point, a simple "no" is sufficient

 

If classes are balanced 1 v1, it follows that they are also balanced 5 v 5.

 

The same factors you cite, aoe vs single target etc apply equivalently to 1v1. **Mobility and Utility apply to 1v1 just as they do to 5v5.**

 

AOE is arguably different 1v1 vs team fighting. However, a properly balnced aoe would be weaker than single target skills. it's easer to use and target. Also in the case of the condi aoe, it's likely to affect the opponent longer. So, while I acknowledge that there is some difference here, it's not enough that proper balance couldn't mitigate it.

 

PvP needs to start with classes balanced 1 v 1. If 5 classes are each balanced individually and interchangeably. Then they are balanced 5v5.

 

**This notion of balancing for team fighting leads to extreme imbalance. First it assumes two or more players who can and will work together effectively. Second it assumes fixed teams, viz a team queue. Without a team queue.. team balancing is likely to create worse imbalance. There's no predicting what combination of classes or builds will be on a given team. Long experience in GW2 has shown Team Queue to not work except for a minority.**

 

 

TLDR: Team balance only works with fixed teams. In a random queue it leads to extreme imbalance. Team queue has been rejected by the community in GW2. Therefore, balance should be 1v1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MithranArkanere.8957]

For me balance can be summarized in one sentence:

 

* No single build should be able to do too many things too often too well with too little effort, and every build should have more or less the same number of viable counter builds as the rest.

 

Good ol' A>B>C>A and variations of it, like AB>CD>FG>AC>BD

 

A build having 'counters' isn't a pass saying it's balance, if the counters have to be builds tailored to counter that one build that are useless against anything else.

 

And If we look at what professions can do in combat, all comes down to 3 main roles with two main forms each: Damage( Power, condition), support (healing, buff), and control (intercept and disrupt). No build should be able to do all 6 particularly well at the same time, and the more a build focuses on one, and the better it is at that one thing, the less effective it should be at the rest. I'd say the sweetspot would be builds that are particularly good at one form of each role, or both forms of 1 role.

 

 

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"MithranArkanere.8957" said:

> For me balance can be summarized in one sentence:

>

> * No single build should be able to do too many things too often too well with too little effort, and every build should have more or less the same number of viable counter builds as the rest.

>

> Good ol' A>B>C>A and variations of it, like AB>CD>FG>AC>BD

>

> A build having 'counters' isn't a pass saying it's balance, if the counters have to be builds tailored to counter that one build that are useless against anything else.

>

> And If we look at what professions can do in combat, all comes down to 3 main roles with two main forms each: Damage( Power, condition), support (healing, buff), and control (intercept and disrupt). No build should be able to do all 6 particularly well at the same time, and the more a build focuses on one, and the better it is at that one thing, the less effective it should be at the rest. I'd say the sweetspot would be builds that are particularly good at one form of each role, or both forms of 1 role.

>

>

 

I largely agree.

[ButterPeanut.9746]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > @"Obindo.6802" said:

> > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > **Balance means:** **Any given class, whether "elite" or not, has an equal chance going into a 1v1 against any other class.**

> >

> > No

>

> Why not? Simply saying no is not meaningful.

 

Because it's so incorrect in the proper way to balance this game. There are 9 different professions each with some very unique class mechanics. To have every class with an equal chance to win every 1v1 against any of the classes is not only impossible, but also incorrect. A core mechanic like stealth is gamebreaking in a 1v1 scenario, but is more balanced in a 5v5 conquest setup where nodes prevent capture while in stealth.

 

A state of balance is the following:

- Each of the major roles in a conquest match (i.e. support, team damage, roaming, dualist, etc) have alternatives. The alternative may not always be equal, but could each be optimal in certain scenarios. (i.e. some better against power comps, some better against condi comps, some better on larger maps, some better on smaller maps, etc)

 

- Each of the major players in each role have a 'rock/paper/scissors' set of balance. The main issue at this point is at times the effort it takes to counter a meta build via this method is at such a disadvantage elsewhere. For example, in an unsupported scenario (and maybe even weakly supported), scourge can suffer against ranged pressure. The issue is that many of the builds that can create this matchup (i.e. LB ranger, Deadeye, FA ele,etc) are extremely nonoptimal against non-scourge matchups. So the rock/paper/scissors ends up not being an equal trade off.

 

- Each of the two above are less impactful than the skill of the players. If a player or a set of players takes a matchup where they are at a disadvantage, but they heavily outplay their opponent, the balance should be close enough such that the players who are at a disadvantage win the matchup.

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > @"Obindo.6802" said:

> > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > **Balance means:** **Any given class, whether "elite" or not, has an equal chance going into a 1v1 against any other class.**

> > >

> > > No

> >

> > Why not? Simply saying no is not meaningful.

>

> Because it's so incorrect in the proper way to balance this game. There are 9 different professions each with some very unique class mechanics. To have every class with an equal chance to win every 1v1 against any of the classes is not only impossible, but also incorrect. A core mechanic like stealth is gamebreaking in a 1v1 scenario, but is more balanced in a 5v5 conquest setup where nodes prevent capture while in stealth.

>

> A state of balance is the following:

> - Each of the major roles in a conquest match (i.e. support, team damage, roaming, dualist, etc) have alternatives. The alternative may not always be equal, but could each be optimal in certain scenarios. (i.e. some better against power comps, some better against condi comps, some better on larger maps, some better on smaller maps, etc)

>

> - Each of the major players in each role have a 'rock/paper/scissors' set of balance. The main issue at this point is at times the effort it takes to counter a meta build via this method is at such a disadvantage elsewhere. For example, in an unsupported scenario (and maybe even weakly supported), scourge can suffer against ranged pressure. The issue is that many of the builds that can create this matchup (i.e. LB ranger, Deadeye, FA ele,etc) are extremely nonoptimal against non-scourge matchups. So the rock/paper/scissors ends up not being an equal trade off.

>

> - Each of the two above are less impactful than the skill of the players. If a player or a set of players takes a matchup where they are at a disadvantage, but they heavily outplay their opponent, the balance should be close enough such that the players who are at a disadvantage win the matchup.

 

First, stealth isn't game breaking. Nor is any single skill at the moment.

 

The idea of "major roles" is far too vague and too subjective to be useful as a balancing standard.

 

Your second argument supports what I have said. **Balance based on teams or "roles" creates situations of extreme imbalance.** Either the Scourge has no support and is a sitting duck or has a healer and is invincible. No amount of "team" mitigation will resolve that because the teams are not consistent.

 

 

To your last point, "maybe." **For things to go as you suggest, the classes would need to be balanced 1v1.**

 

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > @"Obindo.6802" said:

> > > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > > **Balance means:** **Any given class, whether "elite" or not, has an equal chance going into a 1v1 against any other class.**

> > > >

> > > > No

> > >

> > > Why not? Simply saying no is not meaningful.

> >

> > Because it's so incorrect in the proper way to balance this game. There are 9 different professions each with some very unique class mechanics. To have every class with an equal chance to win every 1v1 against any of the classes is not only impossible, but also incorrect. A core mechanic like stealth is gamebreaking in a 1v1 scenario, but is more balanced in a 5v5 conquest setup where nodes prevent capture while in stealth.

> >

> > A state of balance is the following:

> > - Each of the major roles in a conquest match (i.e. support, team damage, roaming, dualist, etc) have alternatives. The alternative may not always be equal, but could each be optimal in certain scenarios. (i.e. some better against power comps, some better against condi comps, some better on larger maps, some better on smaller maps, etc)

> >

> > - Each of the major players in each role have a 'rock/paper/scissors' set of balance. The main issue at this point is at times the effort it takes to counter a meta build via this method is at such a disadvantage elsewhere. For example, in an unsupported scenario (and maybe even weakly supported), scourge can suffer against ranged pressure. The issue is that many of the builds that can create this matchup (i.e. LB ranger, Deadeye, FA ele,etc) are extremely nonoptimal against non-scourge matchups. So the rock/paper/scissors ends up not being an equal trade off.

> >

> > - Each of the two above are less impactful than the skill of the players. If a player or a set of players takes a matchup where they are at a disadvantage, but they heavily outplay their opponent, the balance should be close enough such that the players who are at a disadvantage win the matchup.

>

> First, stealth isn't game breaking. Nor is any single skill at the moment.

>

> The idea of "major roles" is far too vague and too subjective to be useful as a balancing standard.

>

> Your second argument supports what I have said. **Balance based on teams or "roles" creates situations of extreme imbalance.** Either the Scourge has no support and is a sitting duck or has a healer and is invincible. No amount of "team" mitigation will resolve that because the teams are not consistent.

>

>

> To your last point, "maybe." **For things to go as you suggest, the classes would need to be balanced 1v1.**

>

 

Even generally balanced 1v1 fighting games have characters with different approaches to combat like Rushdown, Zoners, Grapplers, and others. Heck in real life boxing there's actual different roles and styles that create competative imbalances and counterplay like Swarmer, Out-Boxer, Slugger, and Box Puncher.

[Dralor.3701]

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"Dralor.3701" said:

> > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > With respect to Scourge. I see the basic problem as being large AOE. Any **mobile** AOE should be small to compensate.

> > >

> > > As a example of a proper condi AOE one could look at [Kirin's Wrath] from GW1.(https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath "https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath")

> > >

> > > This skill hit's foes *adjacent* which is to say just beyond melee range. This for a immobile AOE. By contrast, the Scorge AOE is **mobile** and covers an area that is about 1/2 *earshot* range. The difference in power is absolutely night and day.

> > >

> > >

> > > ANET would do well to crank the AOE down to about adjacent range.. and that would still be a little too much. Touch range would be better, given that it's mobile.

> >

> > Not that it is a pvp (but class related) I’m seeing a lot of chrono bunker commanders in WvW but no scourge commanders. So weird, right?

>

> Are these actual bunker chronos or pseudo pve boonshare chronos?

 

Assuming full bunker since they can dive head first into the other zerg while getting pin sniped.

[mortrialus.3062]

> @"Dralor.3701" said:

> > @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > > @"Dralor.3701" said:

> > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > With respect to Scourge. I see the basic problem as being large AOE. Any **mobile** AOE should be small to compensate.

> > > >

> > > > As a example of a proper condi AOE one could look at [Kirin's Wrath] from GW1.(https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath "https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Kirin%27s_Wrath")

> > > >

> > > > This skill hit's foes *adjacent* which is to say just beyond melee range. This for a immobile AOE. By contrast, the Scorge AOE is **mobile** and covers an area that is about 1/2 *earshot* range. The difference in power is absolutely night and day.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ANET would do well to crank the AOE down to about adjacent range.. and that would still be a little too much. Touch range would be better, given that it's mobile.

> > >

> > > Not that it is a pvp (but class related) I’m seeing a lot of chrono bunker commanders in WvW but no scourge commanders. So weird, right?

> >

> > Are these actual bunker chronos or pseudo pve boonshare chronos?

>

> Assuming full bunker since they can dive head first into the other zerg while getting pin sniped.

 

That sounds more like a PvE minstrel tank tbh. Are they using Phantasmal Disenchanter and Defender?

[Ithilwen.1529]

> @"mortrialus.3062" said:

> > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > @"ButterPeanut.9746" said:

> > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > > @"Obindo.6802" said:

> > > > > > @"Ithilwen.1529" said:

> > > > > > **Balance means:** **Any given class, whether "elite" or not, has an equal chance going into a 1v1 against any other class.**

> > > > >

> > > > > No

> > > >

> > > > Why not? Simply saying no is not meaningful.

> > >

> > > Because it's so incorrect in the proper way to balance this game. There are 9 different professions each with some very unique class mechanics. To have every class with an equal chance to win every 1v1 against any of the classes is not only impossible, but also incorrect. A core mechanic like stealth is gamebreaking in a 1v1 scenario, but is more balanced in a 5v5 conquest setup where nodes prevent capture while in stealth.

> > >

> > > A state of balance is the following:

> > > - Each of the major roles in a conquest match (i.e. support, team damage, roaming, dualist, etc) have alternatives. The alternative may not always be equal, but could each be optimal in certain scenarios. (i.e. some better against power comps, some better against condi comps, some better on larger maps, some better on smaller maps, etc)

> > >

> > > - Each of the major players in each role have a 'rock/paper/scissors' set of balance. The main issue at this point is at times the effort it takes to counter a meta build via this method is at such a disadvantage elsewhere. For example, in an unsupported scenario (and maybe even weakly supported), scourge can suffer against ranged pressure. The issue is that many of the builds that can create this matchup (i.e. LB ranger, Deadeye, FA ele,etc) are extremely nonoptimal against non-scourge matchups. So the rock/paper/scissors ends up not being an equal trade off.

> > >

> > > - Each of the two above are less impactful than the skill of the players. If a player or a set of players takes a matchup where they are at a disadvantage, but they heavily outplay their opponent, the balance should be close enough such that the players who are at a disadvantage win the matchup.

> >

> > First, stealth isn't game breaking. Nor is any single skill at the moment.

> >

> > The idea of "major roles" is far too vague and too subjective to be useful as a balancing standard.

> >

> > Your second argument supports what I have said. **Balance based on teams or "roles" creates situations of extreme imbalance.** Either the Scourge has no support and is a sitting duck or has a healer and is invincible. No amount of "team" mitigation will resolve that because the teams are not consistent.

> >

> >

> > To your last point, "maybe." **For things to go as you suggest, the classes would need to be balanced 1v1.**

> >

>

> Even generally balanced 1v1 fighting games have characters with different approaches to combat like Rushdown, Zoners, Grapplers, and others. Heck in real life boxing there's actual different roles and styles that create competative imbalances and counterplay like Swarmer, Out-Boxer, Slugger, and Box Puncher.

 

Different approaches is all to the good. My point was that different approaches can be balanced against one another. They should not, however, be the basis for balance.