Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

RE: Is Team (2v2) Balanced?

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance >> RE: Is Team (2v2) Balanced?
Page 6 of 7«<34567>»
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
12/5/2012 1:33:14   
legion of souls
Member

I usually prepare myself in case my partner is a lower level than myself.
Meaning a tough juggernaut build and boosters.
AQW Epic  Post #: 126
12/5/2012 1:49:56   
goldslayer1
Member

/ragequit after having 5 consecutive partners in a row all with less than 50 hp.....
AQW Epic  Post #: 127
12/5/2012 2:37:07   
Sauerkraut
Member

quote:

[...] All battle modes are neutral. [...] If one person faces a disadvantage in a battle mode, others in this battle mode suffer from the exact same, so all things are equal. You find 2v2 people hard? Well so does everyone else. People are actually subconsciously deeming 2v2 as "unbalanced" due to the fact it is harder to win. [...] People need to relax when they get bad partners, you might get angry at the fact you lose, but so does every other single player in the game [...]


Exactly. % - obsession is not the best argument to demand more "balance". IMHO 2v2 is fine as it is - I do enjoy it on my main character (level 35, varium gear, 16k wins at a decent %) as well as on my nonvar alts.
Epic  Post #: 128
12/13/2012 21:03:07   
King Helios
Member

Problem is speed = low wins. 50 or less % on TlM Support usually.
AQ MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 129
12/14/2012 14:26:27   
Warmaker04
Member
 

 Well JUST wait for omega. This topic is too big. Dont see sence to continue this, since they said in omega there will be balanced everything.
Just wait to it. Its just not needed to post there since there is a phase coming with changes. just 6 days till it. Greatly kind of regards.
AQW Epic  Post #: 130
12/14/2012 14:33:33   
goldslayer1
Member

@warmaker
after seeing the previous mistakes done by the balance staff, i honestly cant say they are credible when they say they "will" balance the game. they tried before and have not succeeded several times. i have nothing against them, but they tend to make changes to one class (e.i add plasma armor to CH) that either make the class/build OP, or they completely destroy it.

an example of destroying is support.
took field medic from support, put deflections on tech, released a robot to nullify gun and aux, released items with specials that lowered support, released robot to decrease the effect done by shields which are usually support powered.

an example of over buffing is CH when they added plasma armor, the class before PA only needed a small Slight boost, not a completely huge one like plasma armor.

and because of plasma armor CH became OP, and their solution to nerf CH after it was OP was to nerf static instead of remove PA which was what made it OP.

< Message edited by goldslayer1 -- 12/14/2012 14:34:35 >
AQW Epic  Post #: 131
12/14/2012 14:45:21   
Warmaker04
Member
 

 Well not everything staff can do. Thats not what i said.
You didnt understand my question my friend body.
Thats why i said to wait till omega. After omega you can make ideas more but.... i dont see reason to post over 100 posts and u know that 1 week is the omega.
Lets see and then we will see what is improved, buffed or nerfed
AQW Epic  Post #: 132
12/14/2012 15:33:21   
goldslayer1
Member

@warmaker
it does make sense, 2 vs 2 has had more balance issues than 1 vs 1 for a long time now. it doesn't matter what they are nerfing/buffing for omega.

because so far, tech mage and to some degree, mercs, are the least preferred classes for 2 vs 2. and its for a reason.
AQW Epic  Post #: 133
12/14/2012 15:37:35   
Mother1
Member

@ goldslayer

You are talking about the baby yeti, and azreal borg wreaking balance in two vs two? What about the assault and rsuted assualt bots? They work with status effects as well only do the opposite of the azreal's borg. If anything those bots make having debuffs worthless that mostly work with support as well so how come you didn't mention those?

Also 2 vs 2 is the most brain based mode out of all three. In the other 2 you rely on yourself, yet in 2 vs 2 you have to work with someone and plan and you never know who your partner is. Just because you can't get brainless wins all the time with this mode doesn't make it unbalanced.

< Message edited by Mother1 -- 12/14/2012 15:38:37 >
Epic  Post #: 134
12/14/2012 15:42:57   
goldslayer1
Member

@mother1
only defense debuff works on support. and its malf.

i dont consider intimidate a true debuff because its only usefull vs strength builds.
anyone debuffing intimidate when ur not a strength build is simply wasting turns.

and yeah ur right, it depends on the partner. thats why i prefer to tell my partner what to do as part of strategy.

but who said anything about brainless wins?
if 2 vs 2 isn't feasible with certain classes, then theres something wrong with that.

< Message edited by goldslayer1 -- 12/14/2012 15:44:44 >
AQW Epic  Post #: 135
12/14/2012 15:57:03   
Mother1
Member

@ goldslayer

I want't talking about you with the brainless wins comment it was for what some people have been saying in this thread before you made your most recent posts.

Most people have been complained about that one fact, and that certain players come in without full gear causing them to lose. A lot of stuff I have read in this thread is either based on getting what people call crappy partners (which isn't always the case since they might have an edge of who comes in. Has happened many times when I have played 2 vs 2 in the past.) and even went as far as saying there need to be a restriction for players without full gear just because they think they are worthless.

While I can understand that this is a competitive game (since some people are competitive by nature) taking away from other's fun in the game just because you think they are worthless in battle believe it or not I find very selfish.
Epic  Post #: 136
12/14/2012 16:04:02   
goldslayer1
Member

@mother1
and the partner issues is why i suggested that 2 vs 2 matches up be based on combat rating.

if u haven't seen my combat rating suggestion click Here to check it out.
while it is part of the game right now, its no fun being pitted against 2 full vars with a default wep lowbie.

combat ratings would stop this issue from happening, and would basically match up players with similar combat ratings against each other.
this essentially makes matches up more balanced.

this also stops the lowbie from being blasted to smithereens by higher lvls.
and would put the low lvls default weps against players with similar combat rating.

its either this, or put ally link for 2 vs 2.
AQW Epic  Post #: 137
12/14/2012 17:19:51   
Angels Holocaust
Member

2 vs 2 is as balanced as Honey Boo Boo is skinny. 2 vs 2 rewards unskilled players and punishes those with skills. It magnifies all the luck times 10x. Why is a pro forced to work with an unskilled lower lv player? He shouldn't, just allow us to select our partners. We haven't tried it yet so is it a bad idea?
Post #: 138
12/14/2012 17:25:19   
Mother1
Member

@ angel

That would make it more brainless since you would know what you partner has and all their strengths and weaknesses. You wouldn't need to adapt since the unknown would be known and in my opinion it would suck the fun out of 2 vs 2.
Epic  Post #: 139
12/14/2012 17:27:51   
goldslayer1
Member

@mother1
bur ur suppose to work as a team, how do u expect to battle right if u dont know ur team?

this unknown thing is the same reason why people are against my suggestions to hide builds so build copying stops.

so ur logic is, known is good for 1 vs 1, but not for 2 vs 2? O.o

< Message edited by goldslayer1 -- 12/14/2012 17:28:00 >
AQW Epic  Post #: 140
12/14/2012 17:46:45   
Mother1
Member

@ goldslayer

I made the same suggestion and it was canned I remember that and also yes you are suppose to work as a team. However the game is also about adapting as well. Being able to pick your partner takes out part of that, and with that part of planning will go out as well.

But also they are against build hiding because they are more concerned about player not being able to find working builds as well. So even if they did make it were you can pick and choose your partner they would still have the people not being able to find a build issue which will keep them from putting that into play.
Epic  Post #: 141
12/14/2012 17:51:04   
The Incredible Hulk
Banned

 
quote:

I made the same suggestion and it was canned I remember that and also yes you are suppose to work as a team. However the game is also about adapting as well. Being able to pick your partner takes out part of that, and with that part of planning will go out as well.

But also they are against build hiding because they are more concerned about player not being able to find working builds as well. So even if they did make it were you can pick and choose your partner they would still have the people not being able to find a build issue which will keep them from putting that into play.


I support
Epic  Post #: 142
12/14/2012 17:55:20   
goldslayer1
Member

@mother1
im saying that yes, adapting is important, but vs ur enemy, not ur team.

think of all the strategies and opportunities ally linking could bring.
its arguable that it will be more strategy based as u will be able to have builds that complement each other.

the point is, 2 vs 2 linking has never been tried, so most people dont know what it could bring, so for the most part they dont support it.
AQW Epic  Post #: 143
12/14/2012 18:08:59   
Mother1
Member

@ goldslayer

There are people with multiple accounts as well as those who use their friend's accounts. This idea could be easily abused as they could just link up with another account of theirs or another friends account to do so. I know it sounds crazy, but if being able to pick and choose your opponents came into play I can grantee some players would do that.
Epic  Post #: 144
12/14/2012 18:11:27   
goldslayer1
Member

@mother1
safety measures are already put in place.
u cant battle urself if ur logged in the same IP on random battles.

if a friend of urs acc got logged in ur IP, ED will know about it.
specially if ur in a competitive faction.
AQW Epic  Post #: 145
12/14/2012 18:45:09   
Mother1
Member

@goldslayer

Would this be mandatory that you had a linked partner for two vs two? If so then it would cause problems. New players who want to do this mode would be forced to find partners. It would lead to partner begging. We already have people begging players to help them with boss fights, we don't need people begging for partners in order to do two vs two. It would cause plenty of problems.

People who can't find partners won't be able to play this mode and be forced to do 1 vs 1. This idea would only help competitive players while hurting those who want to battle two vs two for fun.


< Message edited by Mother1 -- 12/14/2012 18:47:09 >
Epic  Post #: 146
12/14/2012 18:47:50   
goldslayer1
Member

@mother1
no, it would be optional.

if u didn't link, u would be put against random players.

this could also help matches be found faster.
AQW Epic  Post #: 147
12/14/2012 19:02:08   
Mother1
Member

@Goldslayer

I could accept this only if it was linked players going against other linked players and random going against random. Otherwise Link players would have an unfair advantage against unlinked players. It wouldn't be fair and there would be complaints in the forums about it.
Epic  Post #: 148
12/14/2012 19:05:10   
The Incredible Hulk
Banned

 

 Made a suggestion for this :P
Epic  Post #: 149
12/15/2012 12:39:10   
King Helios
Member

Where? (Above) If it is linking, then no.
AQ MQ AQW Epic  Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance >> RE: Is Team (2v2) Balanced?
Page 6 of 7«<34567>»
Jump to:






Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition