Curse

Snow Bunny · Mar 21, 2008, 05:44 PM // 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Or you could take Splinter Barrage Ritualists, using Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, SY/TNtF Paragons, using mobile bunkers, and.... well, yeah, once you have those your team is pretty much made; all you need is a few paragons running that and a bunch of Splinter Barrage ritualists, as well as a healing ritualist to patch any life steal type damage that gets through.

And the game is won.

So why are you people complaining about these nerfs?

If any of you used the skills nerfed in this update for PvE, you truly have some issues regarding viability of skills.

Lordhelmos · Mar 21, 2008, 06:23 PM // 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

Something to think about: take a look at Quick Shot and consider why it's an elite skill. Then look at the turret skills.

While I'm not going to comment on the specific merits of these balance changes, recent balancing has seemed too knee-jerk. Overpowered is actually okay; it's all a matter of degree. Example: Guilty Gear is considered one of the most balanced fighting games ever made, yet nearly every character is overpowered in some way or another, and not every character is equally overpowered. The key is that every character has a reasonable chance of winning against all other characters, and it's the best players that are able to capitalize on those chances and win those tough 4-6 or 3-7 matches. There are, in fact, few matchups in fighting games that are exactly 5-5, but that never seems to matter for balance.

People who are familiar with my posts know I pull the Guilty Gear example a lot in balance discussions - I do it because I find their model more instructive than more boring balance models like Starcraft. SC is essentially a compound R-P-S game at the unit level - this is an obvious way to get pseudo-perfect balance, but it's not nearly as interesting as Guilty Gear. GG uses a general system to curb instant-win buttons like infinite combos, but otherwise allows characters free reign. So where does the balance come from?

The balance comes from the fact that the players learn how to play each particular match - one of the reasons competitive GG has such a notorious learning curve is because learning how to play your own character isn't at all good enough; you have to learn how to play your character against every other character in the cast, and the strategy will be different (often radically so) for each opponent. At lower levels of play, the top-tier characters are plainly obvious, because they have easily abusable weapons that most casual and intermediate players don't know how to deal with. At higher levels it becomes much less obvious which character has the advantage in any particular match because the top players know how to work around the overpowered tools their opponents are using - even in cases where they have no direct counter.

I think GW could stand to learn something from this. A build that appears overpowered on-face isn't necessarily broken in general. It's difficult to conclude, after just a week or even a month of playing, that something is so overpowered that it really needs to be 'fixed'. Again, I'm not saying that nothing can ever actually be broken. But I think it's worth waiting to see if top players learn how to play around it before actually tweaking the skills. There's more potential for improvement and evolution this way than just killing overpowered stuff with the nerfbat.

I can agree as a Guilty Gear Accent Core player myself. However, one thing about the Guilty Gear series is that aside from each of the unique build templates that underlie each character, the basic system of Guilty Gear grants each character a baseline set of extremely powerful defensive techniques that allow them to escape out of any situation, no matter how monstrous of a combo (aka, badlands loop) or handicap they might be caught up in.

Regardless of how broken a character might be (like testament, who can chain a character into a near endless badlands loop off a simple throw) each character has access to a burst cancel that can break enemy combos, faultless defense that sacrifices tension to prevent chipping damage from overpowered supers like Venom's Dark Angel (Yeah the big fat ball of doom we all hate), or in the most dire situations, an instant kill system that can turn the table of the match by putting everything into one desperate strike that can end the game (well, with the exception of Dizzy, but we all still love her anyway right?).

Unlike Guildwars, Guilty Gear XX:AC has a extremely balanced set of underlying rules that governs the most basic aspects of the game. Although each character in guilty gear might be blatantly overpowered in some way (Like Orders-Sol's cornertrap game, omg holy crap giant rock-slab sword to the face) the system is balanced out by the existence of underlying rules that allows any character to turn the tide of the match at any given moment.

Not only does this make Guilty Gear extremely fun, it allows balance because a player as the ability to crawl back from almost impossible odds and lead the match into some interesting developments.

Unlike Guilty Gear, Guildwars suffers because it doesn't have an underlying subsystem of similar defensive skills or rules that allow players to recover from cheapshot builds, griefer tactics like shadowform/escape characters, or cheap spikes like the former EC spike. The end result is that unlike Guilty Gear, in which the chance of victory always exists because a set of balanced governing rules, with Guildwars you find yourself constantly losing over choosing the wrong build, rather than getting outmatched as a player.

Underlying rules that grant defensive or survival options to a handicapped player or underpowered character are always prevalent in games in which balance and fun are exemplified, like Guilty Gear. The most successful PvP games all have underlying mechanics that grant players good options even while they are in the worst possible situations.

Take a look at the shield system from Halo, in which an unarmed player can be protected by a constantly recharging shield bar that can protect them long enough to find a weapon capable of killing the guy with the rocket launcher camped around the corner, or they can melee him to the back by sneaking up on him to score an instant kill.

Aside from the 8 skills brought into PvP in guildwars, there is no underlying set of skills or balance system aside from individual player builds that allows a player to effectively defend against someone abusing an overpowered build. When you are getting cremed by a turret ranger without something like SoA to minimize the damage, there is no burst cancel or shield bar thats going to save you from the overwhelming amount of overpowered damage flooding your character.

This is why balance in Guildwars fails, because when things in Guildwars become abusable, there is no subsystem of universal rules that allows a player to combat griefer builds or overpowered skills. In many cases, if your running the wrong build, you simply lose.

Anyway, burst you get a huge freaking cookie for playing Guilty Gear. When I get pissed off about retarded skill balances or broken stuff in Guildwars, the Ps3 goes on and someone gets the wrath of Necro's Anger or a FRC'ed Icespike to the face.

Paying 1000ectos +1200armbraces for a mini Dizzy.

Giga_Gaia · Mar 21, 2008, 06:48 PM // 18:48

I think the idea of changing stuff for the sake of changing the meta and their constant need for a balanced game is kind of contradicting. Hence, these massive updates all over the place.

Pyro maniac · Mar 21, 2008, 07:01 PM // 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harmless

Actually, a variation of that might be better. Why don't they try limiting skills available for some types of pvp. They could make the majority of the skills pve only with only a core group available to pvp. Then they could change which ones are available to pvp each month so that new builds have to be made. Might make it interesting. It would be pretty cool to see who could come up with the best builds for the month.

If they did that I would start watching pvp on observer more.

sealed deck, the wet dream of all PvP'ers
Not going to happen, costs too much. I wouldn't mind to pay a monthly fee just to get those balances.

Pandora's box · Mar 21, 2008, 07:07 PM // 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Noid

How does this explain this thread?

...And many other threads after the nerfbat hit?

In many other online games PvP simply means: Player killing, bagstealing and bragging around about how much better you are. PvPers have a bad name. This is how many PvE players look upon PvPers in general: people bragging about their skills, not doing anything for the community.

A game which honors the needs of such a group may expect an increasing opposition of the others. It has not much to do with effect on 1 or 2 skills, its an addition sum of the long past which led to here. I don't know how Anet will handle this in GW2, but one thing is sure: PvP players and PvE players are suspicious to each other by nature. Taking from 1 and giving to the other will always cause problems.

Dr Strangelove · Mar 21, 2008, 07:29 PM // 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pyro maniac

sealed deck, the wet dream of all PvP'ers
Not going to happen, costs too much. I wouldn't mind to pay a monthly fee just to get those balances.

Well, they did costume brawl at one point, so there's a chance. I agree that sealed deck play is all sorts of awesome.

Burst Cancel · Mar 21, 2008, 07:40 PM // 19:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lordhelmos

snip

My point wasn't to directly compare GG with GW as their systems really aren't analogous. Aside from being multiplayer, GW also has a skill system which at the same time gives you a) a lot of possibilities to play with and b) restricts you to 64 of those possibilities at a time. The systems would be closer if teams were restricted to playing, say, 24 pre-defined builds, but that destroys much of what makes GW well, GW.

My point was about balancing in general, and two points specifically:
a) slightly overpowered is okay - this actually improves player skill overall by encouraging people to work around it.
b) something that appears broken at first may not actually be, given sufficient time.

A third point that I didn't make before is that Anet's 'fixes' often completely dismantle the builds and the skills involved. After the nerfbat comes down, some builds simply become unplayable - there doesn't appear to be much of a middle ground. Guilty Gear has been through several iterations since I started playing; in each one, characters are changed, but the overall power isn't changed that dramatically. GW doesn't seem to do that - 'shaking things up' means nerfing some things to the point of unplayability so you simply don't have any option but to try something else.

Again, I'm not addressing the current set of nerfs - it's entirely possible that turrets and unblockable spikes were simply too strong; I'm not qualified to judge one way or the other. But I've been looking at the design concepts behind GW and other successful games for a while, and I've always felt that a hard 'fix' by the devs should be infrequent. If at all possible, things should be left to the players to figure out.

As for the whole PvP vs. PvE debate, I don't think it's as gruesome as all of that. As someone said above (Stormlord, I think), many of the top PvPers also play PvE. The primary difference in viewpoint isn't PvP vs. PvE, but rather hardcore vs. casual. Some people bother to study the game mechanics, apply minmaxing, etc. Other people just want to have fun. These groups will rarely see eye-to-eye because one group simply doesn't have any respect or tolerance for people who walk around clueless, incompetent and doing things "their own way", while the other group doesn't understand why people can't just chill the **** out and let them have their fun. Both groups show up in both PvP and PvE - casual PvPers aren't really much different from casual PvEers. Similarly, bragging is a personality flaw that will exist no matter where you play - in PvP you have /rank wankers and in PvE you have the quintessential FoW wammo. In short, it really comes down to how seriously you take the game and how much of an ***hole you are.

Aerian_Skybane · Mar 21, 2008, 08:11 PM // 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Yeah, ya think you'd get used to it.

But still, these threads are like bad accidents on the highway - you just got to slow down and stare even if it doesn't affect you.

Wow. You just ruined my habit of reading all new posts before posting back in order to minimize my amount of edits I need to add after continued reading/need to argue more violently/realizing I was a douchebag.

You win everything forever. As I said earlier, I am a long time PvEr who occasionally dabbles in PvP (AB mostly since the skills addition, although its not THAT serious as some people make the linked aspect to be), and I will never change. I am never 100% affected (or need to start at "level 1" lol) by these nerfs. In fact, I don't even think I change my builds based on them in PvE, I just go, "Woo, Power Shot got buffed" or "Sigh, Power Shot got nerfed". With rare occasional difference of course (when something gets buffed 99% of the time).

I read these threads with curious wonder and awe, at the amount of people who honestly believe their PvE is "ruined" (barring nerfed easy-farm builds, in which case it is actually, un-quoted ruined, but, in my humble but vaguely egotistical belief, is justified). I feel like I have entered another world of human perception and psyche. Then your message cleared it all up for me, and I realized, my facsination of these "wrecks" of threads, are similar to the person driving by a multi-car pileup, slowing down and viewing the carnage, and wondering what poor saps are caught up in there and what supreme jackasses caused the wreckage. Then I drive on, continuing at my pace on the road ahead.

Of all things man you just pulled a giant switch in my shallow minds light bulb and enlightened me to how the internet and specifically gaming forums are more or less akin to an epic wreckage of human-driven tragedy. Wonderful.

Grammar · Mar 21, 2008, 09:34 PM // 21:34

We all knew Penetrating/Sundering Attack needed a slight nerf after the activation time buff, but holy damn, Anet gave them the full WY! treatment!

The problem was obviously the recast of only 3 seconds, which was out of line with all the other comparable attack skills in the marksmanship line.
The proper solution was to increase the recast and leave everything else the way it is.

Well, they did indeed increase the recast a tiny bit, but then butchered the rest of the skill beyond all reason (halved the AP and almost halved the +damage, yikes!). They should have taken the recast even higher (5 or maybe even 6 seconds) and left everything else the way it was.

Arkantos · Mar 21, 2008, 09:45 PM // 21:45

Quote:

In many other online games PvP simply means: Player killing, bagstealing and bragging around about how much better you are. PvPers have a bad name. This is how many PvE players look upon PvPers in general: people bragging about their skills, not doing anything for the community.

What exactly is your point? It's not like PvErs have a much better name. Take a look at all the skill balance threads, you'll see PvErs whining and whining. I'd much rather be looked at as someone who brags as opposed to someone who whines.

-Loki- · Mar 21, 2008, 10:22 PM // 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pandora's box

We have had that discussion numerous times now and there never will be consensus about this. One can argue about the real effects on PvE, but the human factor here is that PvE gamers more and more start to dislike PvP players because of all the hassle. The only solution: Separate PvE and PvP skillsets in GW2.

People need to get used to it. Arenanet have again, through their actions, shown they do not want to separate the gametypes. They want you to be able to PvP with your PvE characters. They added overpowered PvE only skills. And I find it hilarious that PvE players cry when an over powered PvP legal skill is nerfed, and then cry about overpowered PvE only skills being too powerful. Have it one way or the other.

Arenanet has so far shown they are unwilling to separate them in GW2 as well, having Guild vs Guild type combat being completely unlocked and automatically bringing characters not at the level requirement up to it temporarily, but PvP characters will not exist. PvE characters will be used, always, and just be made UAX in GvG, while GvGing. Basically, get used to having the gametypes combined, because that is what Guild Wars is.

Giga_Gaia · Mar 22, 2008, 02:48 AM // 02:48

If that's the case then good luck to them in GW2. I'd love to see how many of their old fanbase would be returning to deal with their stuck up attitude.

Haskell · Mar 22, 2008, 04:51 AM // 04:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

My point was about balancing in general, and two points specifically:
a) slightly overpowered is okay - this actually improves player skill overall by encouraging people to work around it.
b) something that appears broken at first may not actually be, given sufficient time.

Actually, this is how ANet has always handled it. Sometimes they waited too long, sometimes they are afraight to nerf a certain skill. Just look at Splinter Weapon - a nerf here would make PvP so much better, yet, they refuse to change it, because it would have too much impact on PvE.

FoxBat · Mar 22, 2008, 05:05 AM // 05:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by garethporlest18

Their 1 second cast time doesn't make them AWESOME HELL YES skills..

Yeah it does. Bow base damage isn't bad, it's the 2+ second attacks that kill it. Oh wait...

Turret rangers lost about 10 DPS and a skill slot. That probably knocks them out of high-end PvP, but they still work everywhere else.