Answer me a question about game balance...

Would you consider the statement below to be true, proving that no class is overpowered, that all classes have weaknessess, and mainly as the poll states:

would any team composed of one class lose to a team composed entirely of another, of equal skill? (low or high skill, as long as they actually know how to play the class, because its easy to be told how to play a class and it isnt the game's fault that people try to eat peas with a butterknife or use classes for unintended purposes that dont fit the class)

i placed my vote. as you can tell, i had to make myself a catergory just for me.

if anyone else needs their own catergory, i think i have 3 more spaces to make them.

I'm not sure about gunner vs tanks, and I feel like a full team of assassins would have a better chance against gunners rather than supports. Supports would just have to be on their toes with the shotgun ready.

I don't think that the assault really has a "counter class", either. Assaults vs supports would mean that the supports would have to stay by their firebases, but the assault would still probably be able to get them with bomb + grenade launcher, and the supports wouldn't be able to push at all because they would get tore up as soon as they left the safety of their firebase. Really, the only weakness an all assault team would have would be bot pushing and turret destroying ability, which could still be overcome with focused fire.

Finally, I don't think that a full team of assassins could be overly effective against any other team combination. Assassins use the element of surprise in pro vs pro fighting, which is lost whenever you're always expecting them.

idk, a team full of assaults could focus fire, but that works both ways (whatever the grenade gun does in damage, the hhgun can do more in healing, so 6 grenade guns < 6 hh guns). plus, i think a support moving a firebase up carefully could outpush an assault, an assault has no very effective method of removing an already placed firebase.

and assassins are fairly good against all lights, since the assassin does a lot of damage at once to pros when they do damage. even against a support this is true. she may not have suprise, but you can see her cross map so you cant assume anything about map control all the time. best thing about assassins: you cant tell they have map control because they always have map control wherever they want it, since they can travel the map. best class to get out of a spawncamp, next to the support's 3 airstrikes.

but i do agree with your opinions. like in street fighter, odds can be beat, especially if you know what to expect out of the other class. if a Gouken knows the opponent will take advantage of grapples constantly, he can tech them all with grapples himself. then he just has to overcome the stright odds of difference in firepower. same with this game, if a team knows to expect an enemy exploiting these specific weaknessess, he can try to cover his *** and just face the difference in the odds.

but i dont believe in a outright unbeatable class, even at low levels, in this game. anyone that learns how to use a class can clear his fair share of opponents and do his end of the work against other people who do the same at the same level with their own class.

everyone learns how to play, everyone plays against balanced skill, everyone has fun, is my motto. and playing against good AND BAD players leave room for improvement, which its always good to get better. NERFING SOMETHING CUZ YOU DONT LIKE IT AND JUST WANT YOUR TIME TO BE EASIER ISNT A GOOD IDEA.

The wording of the poll question is a bit confusing. Not sure whether I should say yes or no!

short answer: do you think the game is balanced = yes / do you think something is overpowered = no

long answer: read the text. you will find a list of counters for other classes. i put this here mainly as a guide for anyone wanting to beg for nerfs. hopefully they will use this instead of claiming something is unbeatable. but the poll is to gauge people's opinion of this guide of counters; if you still feel something is too good to be beat, please vote no to this guide.

Your scenario has absolutely nothing to do with balance, it isn't really even useful as a balance thought exercise. A class can be overpowered, but lack the ability to close out the game. A class can be the best class in 6v6 all one class, but still be balanced in regular play. Classes can have niche roles they do very well, but perform very poorly alone.

Let's invent a class called Bob. Bob has no weapons and only 1 skill. This skill kills all bots and players when used on a 1 minute cooldown (unaffected by sponsors.) Bob can do nothing else and when 1 Bob uses his skill it drains the skill of every Bob on the team. He can do one very overpowered thing, but will lose every game without backup since he can't kill the moneyball or turrets.

in cooperation with the annihalator, i bet i could single handedly beat a team of anything but supports as "bob".

every pro dying every minute, bots would pyle up, destroy turrets on their own, and destroy the moneyball on their own. the LEAST that could happen is a tie, as their bots cant make it to your moneyball in one minute, so THEY couldnt complete the objective either.

i do understand your point and appreciate it. im not trying to play "theory fighter" here. im just saying that i notice every single nerf asked for is a class that can very easily be beaten by another class that knows what its doing.

example: as an assault player, id rather then nerf the assault than the sniper. he is just so damn easy to beat. im like the 3rd best assault player, and i can beat ANY sniper. grimbar. pohtaytoes. anybody. EASILY. truth be told, my first pc match of mnc was 2v2 a sniper and assassin vs me (and another assassin that joined once i had the ball down). i pushed the **** out of BOTH sides of grenadeIII, didnt die but 2 times, killed the sniper and assassin 4 times each, took out a turret, dropped the ball, juiced without buying, all without feeling harassed or even challenged.

I would suggest that the accuracy of the given argument does in fact depend on whether it is a team of amateurs vs amateurs or experts vs experts etc. I think that the examples given would be more true of experts vs experts than amateurs vs amateurs. In the latter I think the game result would largely be random, i.e. close to 50% each way, the significance of class choice would reduce due to a lack of ability to utilise the tools at the players' disposal.