Templar vs. Assassin

[Kane]

Any class should be able to beat any other class with the right equipment/skills/setup imo. Thats balanced. If you think you can roll a Gladiator and kill every Assassin you see and run away from every Sorcerer you see, thats booooring and makes 1v1 a matter of what class you are.

[kevinc4]

Any class should be able to beat any other class with the right equipment/skills/setup imo. Thats balanced. If you think you can roll a Gladiator and kill every Assassin you see and run away from every Sorcerer you see, thats booooring and makes 1v1 a matter of what class you are.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

If a certain class will always own and get owned by certain classes, it makes the game boring, linear, and predictable.

[Terpsichore]

Originally Posted by Xanoth

.
Balanced system is one that depends on player's skills not class/equipment (like it was in wow)

You lost all the credibility with this, wow is a game based on gear and counterclasses.

I guess my concept is a bit hard to explain, if you played ragnarok online you prolly can understand what i'm talking about.

Every class has a strong role and greatly excess in some way depending of build, plus the natural ability to have advantage over x classes and specs while being weak to z classes and specs. And since the game is based on group pvp, everything works like charm because every class is needed to perform the thing he's good at.

When every class is able to kill every class and there are no logical advantages like tanks over melees, pvp becomes dull, subject to balance issues and constant complaints (wow *cough*), you can't make a game completely balanced, and homogenization of classes just makes it worse.

[Birdman]

Originally Posted by Terpsichore

You lost all the credibility with this, wow is a game based on gear and counterclasses.

I guess my concept is a bit hard to explain, if you played ragnarok online you prolly can understand what i'm talking about.

Every class has a strong role and greatly excess in some way depending of build, plus the natural ability to have advantage over x classes and specs while being weak to z classes and specs. And since the game is based on group pvp, everything works like charm because every class is needed to perform the thing he's good at.

When every class is able to kill every class and there are no logical advantages like tanks over melees, pvp becomes dull, subject to balance issues and constant complaints (wow *cough*), you can't make a game completely balanced, and homogenization of classes just makes it worse.

I'm going with Terp on this one. It's impossible to make a game with so many different classes and have them all equally able to kill each other. You just can't do it. Also, like Turpentine here just said, if you want complete equality and only have it based on individual skill, go play an fps.

[AdrianWhiteheart]

you may have watched a couple videos when it was still closed beta and the classes were really unbalanced. Just thought I might throw that out there if nobody hasn't yet.
But I think its pretty balanced now.
Templar=low attack but high defense.
Assassin=High attack but low defense.
At least thats how I look at it.

I remember when Bluemage first came out in FFXI and everyone thought they were the best pvp classes ever just because they did high amounts of damage in a short time. It was really annoying >.>

[kevinc4]

Every class has a strong role and greatly excess in some way depending of build, plus the natural ability to have advantage over x classes and specs while being weak to z classes and specs. And since the game is based on group pvp, everything works like charm because every class is needed to perform the thing he's good at.

Group pvp it doesn't matter who can win 1v1, so I can agree on this. Don't see how its relevant to the argument at hand though. I thought we were arguing 1v1 here, group pvp is a whole other bag of brownies. I agree that in group people will have more defined roles, just because it keeps things organized and works better.

When every class is able to kill every class and there are no logical advantages like tanks over melees, pvp becomes dull, subject to balance issues and constant complaints (wow *cough*), you can't make a game completely balanced, and homogenization of classes just makes it worse.

In 1v1 classes (In most games) can come up with different counter-strategies and tactics depending on the class their facing, changing their playstyle for just that fight. It's called adapting. If a templar was fighting a sorcerer, I think the sorc would have an initial upper-hand, but it doesn't mean he cant win and should just throw in the towel. He could do things a templar would not do against a melee dd in a fight, and use a strategy more suited for taking down a sorc.

I guess my concept is a bit hard to explain, if you played ragnarok online you prolly can understand what i'm talking about.

I know what your talking about, I just don't agree that it should be that way. I plan to play a templar at launch even, but I don't want to think I have no chance of winning when a well equip/skilled sorc attacks me though.

I'm going with Terp on this one. It's impossible to make a game with so many different classes and have them all equally able to kill each other. You just can't do it. Also, like Turpentine here just said, if you want complete equality and only have it based on individual skill, go play an fps.

I don't think all classes will have an exactly equal chance to kill eacthother, but no class should have a %100 chance to kill another class of equal level/skill/equip. That sounds more ridiculous to me each time I say it. Believe me, when I feel the urge to play a game based purely on skill I do pick up the 360 controller and jump on halo(even though I end up getting raped most of the time :[)

[Terpsichore]

I never said 100% chance, just a big and logical advantage, throw there some skill, luck, creative use of landscape and items, etc etc.

And you know what happens when every class "can" kill other class? People pick the easiest to use, which is usually assassin/rogue and the likes and servers are overpopulared with them.

As for templar vs casters, well, templar has lots of disable skills, so if you get jump you stand a chance, but if you are surprised and nuked to death, except the worse, seems fine to me.

[kevinc4]

When assassin/rogue (or any physical dder at this point) class beats a tank, game balance just fail, there is no justification to that.

only bad templars should lose to melees.

So if i tank is killed by melee dder, the tank is useless.

How is that not implying %100 chance?

And you know what happens when every class "can" kill other class? People pick the easiest to use, which is usually assassin/rogue and the likes and servers are overpopulared with them.

That sounds like something a bunch of noobs would do. I say let them do as they please, I could care less what they do.

[quote]

When assassin/rogue (or any physical dder at this point) class beats a tank, game balance just fail, there is no justification to that.

only bad templars should lose to melees.

So if i tank is killed by melee dder, the tank is useless.

How is that not implying %100 chance?

And you know what happens when every class "can" kill other class? People pick the easiest to use, which is usually assassin/rogue and the likes and servers are overpopulared with them.

That sounds like something a bunch of noobs would do. I say let them do as they please, I could care less what they do.

As for templar vs casters, well, templar has lots of disable skills, so if you get jump you stand a chance, but if you are surprised and nuked to death, except the worse, seems fine to me.

Yeah, if a temp is just sittin there and starts getting nuked its most likely hes gonna die. Hell, any class that gets a jump on another player has a good chance of winning.

[Terpsichore]

Its quite simple really, there are bad players, average players and good players.

Since game balance is usually built around average sector, templars from this sector should beat melees on a regular basis.

Of course its different for good players, but the natural advantage is still there.

If they are going to try and make every class "equal and able to beat any other class" aion will become another wow where the only thing left are constant complaints.

[kevinc4]

My god, are you even taking to time to read what i'm typing? That or you're refusing to argue points that i'm making and enjoy going off on your own tangent with each post.

I'll say this yet again. Fair 1v1 will never be where all classes have an exact %50 chance of beathing all other classes. But it should never reach a point where 1 class has a %100 chance of beating another class of equal equip/skill/lvl in a fair 1v1.

[Xanoth]

Originally Posted by Terpsichore

You lost all the credibility with this, wow is a game based on gear and counterclasses.

You misunderstood me :P And yes, I meant exactly what you said. It should understood be like

blah blah, a game based on gear, like wow for example, blah blah blah

Originally Posted by Terpsichore

People pick the easiest to use, which is usually assassin/rogue and the likes and servers are overpopulared with them.

I don't agree. Read Sin forum sometimes. It's considered the most tactical and difficult class to play. And that's true, you need to be always on the move to stand a chance against heavy meelers. Standing in front of Templar and slashing his shield with lightspeed won't get you anywhere.

And according to actual polls, sins won't be the most popular class ingame.

[Birdman]

Originally Posted by Xanoth

And according to actual polls, sins won't be the most popular class ingame.

If you are referring to the Aionsource polls, that's not a very good indicator of what the class spread will be. There like 11k members, but less than a 1/4 are actually active.

[Xanoth]

Originally Posted by birdman

If you are referring to the Aionsource polls, that's not a very good indicator of what the class spread will be. There like 11k members, but less than a 1/4 are actually active.

It's quality not quantity that matters.
Let me explain - we have on forum people from all over the NA and EU, even some form other continents. Let's say that only 1/4 of Source members will vote - it's still a good model of whole community. I don't think that people from one country will be rolling mainly asmo sins, while guys from another elyos gladiators.
I think that Source polls shows pretty accurate class balance for this half of the world, and they're much more accurate than polls on national sites, like jeuxonline, because they're created by people from many different countries.

[Daishi]

Originally Posted by AdrianWhiteheart

But I think its pretty balanced now.
Templar=low attack but high defense.
Assassin=High attack but low defense.
At least thats how I look at it.

Exactly, that would mean that they negate each other, thus the winner would be chosen by skill and play style. Which happens to be the case in a lot of MMORPGs.

Originally Posted by Terpsichore

Its quite simple really, there are bad players, average players and good players.

Since game balance is usually built around average sector, templars from this sector should beat melees on a regular basis.

Of course its different for good players, but the natural advantage is still there.

If they are going to try and make every class "equal and able to beat any other class" aion will become another wow where the only thing left are constant complaints.

First off, people arn't so loosely clumped together into things. Devs don't make classifications between bad, average, and good players like that, so building around an average sector would be pointless, as there isn't one. This is why balancing classes is extremely difficult. Devs generally try to please everyone, but it's impossible, so some are always left out.

Second, WoW isn't the only game people complain about balancing, it's just the most popular so there's naturally more than other, less popular games. In L2, necros and archers tend to decimate almost anyone in 1 vs 1, and a properly built destroyer could literally take out an entire group by himself. Overall you can go onto any game forums and clearly pick out which class is overpowered and which is a sitting duck. There's always complaining about balancing.

Alos, you're forgetting one very important aspect, not everyone has the same play style. For example, templar A might focus more on outlasting his opponent, while templar B focuses more on his ability to stun and skill cancel. In a fight against a caster, templar A would stand little chance, but templar B's chances would be rather high. The reason for this is the casting time, the caster can't get an attack off if templar B keeps interupting by stunning or knocking him down, but the caster would have no problem getting his casts off against templar A. Casters are notorious for doing high damage, so even though templar A has higher HP, it wouldn't mean much. Against an assassin it would be a similar situation, one style of playing might be horrible against them, while another can take them down with ease.

[Xanoth]

Originally Posted by Daishi

Alos, you're forgetting one very important aspect, not everyone has the same play style. For example, templar A might focus more on outlasting his opponent, while templar B focuses more on his ability to stun and skill cancel. In a fight against a caster, templar A would stand little chance, but templar B's chances would be rather high. The reason for this is the casting time, the caster can't get an attack off if templar B keeps interupting by stunning or knocking him down, but the caster would have no problem getting his casts off against templar A. Casters are notorious for doing high damage, so even though templar A has higher HP, it wouldn't mean much. Against an assassin it would be a similar situation, one style of playing might be horrible against them, while another can take them down with ease.

I don't know what to tell...
Awesome post, cookie for you