12 replies to this topic

[rhaiin23]

Why dont you do 3rd job at least for Cleric to separate the FS cleric and BC.

 

this will make better for team balancing in CD..

 

 

kindly thanks

[jerremy]

Some passives are shared between classes, regardless of going BC or FS. Hybrid builds would not be possible if the classes are separated. Where do you draw the line between offensive and supportive summons? What about skill requirements like the need for mana/sala flames to get the rest of the summons?

CD does need better team balancing, but this is not the way to go and would just be a huge cluster of things that need to be fixed.

[Graziano]

Don't think this would be fair for clerics, if they want to switch from bc to sf they wont be able to, like other classes can.

A way to define bc in cd for better balance would be nice tho.

[jerremy]

Great idea. I think identifying a FS cleric should be done not by looking at the skills they have, but looking at the skills they don't have. 

The system should check like this:

1)Are you a cleric?

2)Do you have cleric's intensity (skill power and aspd/melee power stack passive)?

 

If the answer to 1) is yes and the answer to 2) is no, the cleric will be identified as support.

Edited by jerremy, 10 April 2014 - 11:38 AM.

[Feuer]

Community forgot that a few weeks prior to the skill update, the majority wanted the restriction of requiring a cleric removed. Now everyone is scrambling to "define" a FS, and add the requirement back. haha kinda funny.

[jerremy]

Well prior to the skill update, you saw maybe 2-3 clerics in a war if you're lucky. Now you see 7 FS on one team vs 2 on the other so yeah. I don't specifically care about the requirement, but being able to define the FS and properly dividing them between both teams so you get a more even distribution of supports would be nice.

[pdfisher]

I just played a CD where it was 10v7. If they can't even get the teams balanced as a whole, how can they do it for clerics? And no, the other team did not go in as a group. At one point in the game, they lost a member, the next one to come in, went right into their team. It ended up being 10v5.

[jerremy]

Maybe they can't now, but it's a consideration for the future. That right there is another issue, team balance does need some adjustment, both overall and class specific.

[Cortiz]

Hmm Rush on seven episode's?  

 

I see a few more comming perhaps a new job. But this is not even close yet

[Feuer]

Honestly the saying "10v7. If they can't even get the teams balanced as a whole" is a bit.... miss informed. 

 

Theres several reason why this can occur.

The first worth noting is sometimes people will qeue as a group of 10 people. Some will qeue smaller groups. So may qeue before / after the qeue request is sent. here's some scenarios that can yield the same result.

 

#1: A group of 10 players qeue up together. and 5 other groups qeue together. 2 parties of 2 [4 players] and 3 solo qeues [7 players].

End result 10 v 7

#2: 2 groups of 5 qeue together. 1 groups of 2. and 2 solo. The system would comprise the teams as 5+2 & 5+1+1. now the teams are 7v7. Game can start. But say one more group qeued, consisting of 3 players. The game has started already and the teams set. one of those teams is now getting 3 players. 50/50 chance of Team A or Team B.

End result is 10v7.

#3: 1 group of 7, 1 group 6, 1 group 4. Now this should be obvious. if the group of 4 is added to 7, it becomes a landslide of 11 v 6 [and the game wouldn't start.] but if the 4 is added to the 6, the game can start. and the next avail qeues are added to the 7.

end result, 7 v10

 

-Also worth noting that the system CANNOT divide or seperate groups that qeued together. Never has and never should. You qeue with friends to play with them in a group.-

 

As far as the whole cleric dilemma, give it time. It's well known, and has been made loud and clear to the staff, and I'd bet my butt that they're already working on things to fix the issue. 

Edited by Feuer, 11 April 2014 - 07:02 PM.

[pdfisher]

Feuer, if you read more, I said the team did not go in as a group. Actually, when we were queued and waiting I was in the only group queued at the time. Also, I further stated that while the game was playing, one of their number dced. Another player was brought in, and they were allocated to the side that already had more ppl.

[Feuer]

 by group I mean randoms of 2 or more people. it'd all work out the same even with all randoms.

 

What about the other factors, maybe the team with less was out performing the team with more and the game allocated it to the lesser functioning team to balance it. but that still doesn't make sense

7v7

-0v-1

------

7v6

+1v+0

---------

8v6?

 

It'd helpe with more details but honestly I was only providing scenarios why and how it could happen. 

[pdfisher]

It started out 7v7, then I guess a group of three came in, and they went to the other side, so it was 10v7. Then it went to 9v7, then back up to 10/7. After a bit, since we were losing so badly, some of our team members starting quitting or dcing. It ended up 10v5.