Curse

Muspellsheimr · Apr 17, 2007, 06:46 AM // 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekedoutfish

I've never played Magic: The Gathering in my life. I have no idea what half those references you mentioned actually mean. I expect im not the only one.

I would use a more well-understood reference next time.

First, give me a more well-understood reference. Magic the Gathering is quite possably the largest and most well known game in existance outside of sports, and has been for nearly 15 years.
Further, you do not need to understand the meaning of what is said to be able to understand it's context.

freekedoutfish · Apr 17, 2007, 03:58 PM // 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muspellsheimr

First, give me a more well-understood reference. Magic the Gathering is quite possably the largest and most well known game in existance outside of sports, and has been for nearly 15 years.
Further, you do not need to understand the meaning of what is said to be able to understand it's context.

Em... you really do need to understand the meaning, otherwise the context just doesnt exist.

You referenced characters and storylines. How am I meant to make a comparison if I dont know who they are, or how they relate to one another?

I read that reference more then once, and it made no sense to me. Just beacuse a game has existed for nearly 15 years doesnt mean everyone in the world who plays an MMO knows about it.

GWs was my first walk into an MMO, and although i've played other RPGish games, I've never seen MTG being played.

GloryFox · Apr 17, 2007, 08:32 PM // 20:32

Quote:

posted by freekedoutfish
Em... you really do need to understand the meaning, otherwise the context just doesnt exist.

You referenced characters and storylines. How am I meant to make a comparison if I dont know who they are, or how they relate to one another?

Magic the Gathering is a "trading card game" and was used as a reference because like in GW you select your cards "Skills in GW" in advance before you enter play or the arena. So you can't change your "build" during the match only before the match. Also just like in GW there is a certain amount of "luck" involved. So you select your build the best you can then run with it. BTW all games involve an amount of "luck" just some more than others.

Facts
1) In over 15 years and 10 years of competitive play in MtG I have yet to see an unbeatable deck.

2) In playing GW since beta I have also yet to see an unbeatable team build in PvP HA or GvG and this includes pre nerfed Ritual Lord or Paragonway. People need to change their thinking more not entire skill attribute lines as they did to Communing and Motivation. It only creates another "Gimmick" that players will complain about then need another nerf to counter it because they can't come up with something original themselves.

IMHO we have a lot of people in game who are just afraid to lose a match or lose status and also want to control all aspects of Guild Wars while screwing the experience of Guild Wars when the majority of skills and builds are and were fine to begin with. The emphasis on over competitiveness has ruined some very fun aspects of the game.

Yichi · Apr 17, 2007, 09:31 PM // 21:31

Balance a metagame.... no

Shift a metagame to the next most powerful thing that comes along... absolutely

Gimme Money Plzkthx · Apr 17, 2007, 10:22 PM // 22:22

Sorry, didn't bother reading past about the first two paragraphs. Anet does not know how to balance a metagame or balance skills instead of completely obliterating their usefulness. This also should've been posted in the PvP section.

Solaufyn · Apr 17, 2007, 10:42 PM // 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Robo

During the April 10th update, Mind Blast was reduced in damage duration (it currently does less damage than Flare at any level of Fire Magic)

Wow, and I thought nerfing Energy Drain so that it scales slower than Energy Tap was sad.

And nerfing the Conjures just days after people started experimenting with them... wow... that's just pitiful.

Am I the only one who honestly believes that if they continue to go down this path, GW2 will never even see release due to an exodus of players?

-Sol

DreamWind · Apr 17, 2007, 11:08 PM // 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryFox

1) In over 15 years and 10 years of competitive play in MtG I have yet to see an unbeatable deck.

2) In playing GW since beta I have also yet to see an unbeatable team build in PvP HA or GvG and this includes pre nerfed Ritual Lord or Paragonway. People need to change their thinking more not entire skill attribute lines as they did to Communing and Motivation. It only creates another "Gimmick" that players will complain about then need another nerf to counter it because they can't come up with something original themselves.

Just because there isn't an unbeatable deck or build doesn't mean the metagame is balanced. Of course every build is beatable, but that doesn't mean its not overpowered.

You mentioned paragonway. Well that thing was pretty damn near unbeatable in HA when it came out. Did people beat it? Yes. But it was still grossly overpowered to the point of the game sucking horribly. That is what we are talking about here. Anet needs to balance the game where no build is clearly overpowered and many builds are viable. That isn't what we have today (and haven't had for a very long time).

Same thing happens in Magic. In the old days, Necropotence was pretty damn near unbeatable. Almost everybody ran it. You COULD beat the deck (if you brought a counter build and got lucky), but it was clearly overpowered. Today, Magic has teams of guys working on set balance to try and avoid this stuff (and they still let some problem cards through). Guild Wars has 1 guy. A problem I see.

Buster · Apr 17, 2007, 11:43 PM // 23:43

I think Anet does the best job it can. Is the game perfect ? No it isn't but neither are the players who play the game. Far too many whiners about what they feel should be nerfed or not. If people feel they can do a better job then by all means they should be applying for work at gaming companies to balance everyone's skills. More people should be concerned with playing the game they like and having fun with it, not whining every day about what should be nerfed or not.

GloryFox · Apr 18, 2007, 01:04 AM // 01:04

Quote:

posted by Gimme Money Plzkthx
Sorry, didn't bother reading past about the first two paragraphs. Anet does not know how to balance a metagame or balance skills instead of completely obliterating their usefulness. This also should've been posted in the PvP section.

Although I agree with your first two comments this belongs in a discussion area that involves all people not just PvP. The effects of over nerfs has created a factor for selecting class roles for people enjoying PvE as much as PvP especially when doing missions and enhancing the overall game experience for class options that are not Warrior Monk Elementalist or Necromancer.

Kityn · Apr 18, 2007, 01:24 AM // 01:24

I have been playing for 2 years now. I have never ever thought about quitting over some skill changes. It keeps me thinking of new builds to use. This game has over 1000 skills and is impossible to have a perfect balance. Anet I know is doing their best to do the best balancing possible. Sure there have been nerfs and buffs that many people do not agree with. And Anet listens to these people and in many cases change these skills again to better accomidate the players. It has been stated the main problems with balancing issues is due to the fact of each chapter that was added had new skills. Yes of course Anet checked these new skills for balancing issue. But the fact there are soo many skills it would be difficult to find balancing problems. Also due to the fact there are people out there that come up with a build that is too far overpowered that alpha testers did not dream of. I believe that Anet has done its best to do what they have done. No other game out there I have ever played or heard of gets this much attention from their developers. Expect more balancing in the future.

Captain Robo · Apr 18, 2007, 08:22 AM // 08:22

For those unfamiliar with Magic: The Gathering, I highly advise reading the following article:

When Good Cards Go Bad

It's probably the best thing Mark Rosewater has ever written. I'm aware that Guildwars has over a thousand skills, and the difficulty involved in balancing them, but consider how many of these skills ever get used in competitive play.

Two hundred?

One Hundred?

I know I'm disregarding the argument with respect to PVE here, but skills are generally more viable in PVE than they are in PVP. Just face it, the PVE in guildwars is not that difficult.

But the point is, with respect to PVP, only a select few of the entire skill library ever sees play, and this is with just reason: these skills represent the cream of the crop. Every profession and every attribute line has crappy skills, some more than others (Look at the Curses, Communing, Smiting lines...).

However, a game needs skills like these, for reasons mentioned best in that article. The problem that Anet has introduced is that they continue to nerf skills, somtimes into complete and utter oblivion, while buffing skills that were previously considered inneffectual.

This may seem like a good way to keep the game diverse with a "rotation" of skills, but it simply goes too fast!

If they buff a skill, they should also buff the counters to that skill, instead of just moving to the next big thing. Furthermore, just because a skill sees a lot of play is not a reason to nerf it. Look at the resurgence of Aegis chains in current PvP; Anet's buff of Mirror of Disenchantment has largely been a failure in stopping Aegis, but lots of people are now using Power Block to stop not only Aegis, but to also shut down the prot line of monks running it.

This is an example of a player based metagame balancing itself out! No intervention by Anet was necessary. Aegis will see a decline until Power Block fades away, at which time most teams will either be smarter about using it, or switch to other methods of melee defense.

A player based metagame carefully overseen by the devs would be the ideal conditions for a healthy game environment.

Drazaar · Apr 18, 2007, 01:48 PM // 13:48

With the last 2 nerfs done Ive really begone to question A Nets logic on how to properly deal with a meta.

The farther back one has left a horrid gimik on the entire necro class which to me is upsetting when you basically, for once had both the PVE community and PVP community on the same page on a proper method to let us try out being the spirit death/removal =0% SR. Instead we got the migrane inducing 5 second rule. Im vaguely reminded of the childish thing we had with food touching the ground with this. its "still good" but when you get down to it its downright gross.

Now im looking at a swift nerfing of all but the earth conjures? I think this was a horrid move at best. So the meta was playing with some harmless skills and I say harmless cause there was many current skills that could of become an easy thorn in the metas side.

A constant nerfing of the meta IS NOT an answer to balancing the game. Hell nerfing the conjures in fear of the fire groups that were begining to form down right disapoints me. This meta wouldnthave harmed the balance nearly as bad as some other metas, yet this move seems to suggest for the most part A net FEARS the meta an has grown to think the only viable solution is to dilute and nerf skills.

A need to nerf the fire meta.. Please. Mantra of Flame and Winter are 2 skills that come to mind that would of given this meta a hard time. And naturally theres plenty more skills those ones just came to my head in a second kind of deal.

crimsonfilms · Apr 18, 2007, 02:31 PM // 14:31

People need to understand.

A COUNTER SKILL DOES NOT MEAN A SKILL IS BALANCED!

Got that?
If Eviscerate did 400 damage points + Deep Wound would it be balance because you can bring Aegis?

Mantra of Flame is a horrible skill for PvP. It is one dimensional. And in a game where you only have 8 skills to bring, and half are already set for the basics (res, energy management, generals buffs and/or survival like stances and healing, etc) a ONE dimensional skill is utterly dumb. Only in rare and extreme exceptions that they are brought.

Winter vs Fire eles? Its called meteor shower, its called gale, etc. One spirit is not going to counter an entire build. That is like NR is enough for hexes and/or heavy enchantment builds.

Last night in ob mode - 2 top 50 guilds played. One was using Eurohex (Migraine + Reapers Mark + Interupt ranger + 2 wars + 2 monk Aegis). The other was spec'd TOTALLY against it.
Divert Hex + Expel + LoD + NR.

Who won? Hexway did. 2 guilds about the same rank (top 50), but one rolled the other team in about 10 mins.
That is a DIRECT counter but it still failed.
Given this is a anecdotal proof, I think it gets the point across

A COUNTER SKILL DOES NOT MEAN A SKILL IS BALANCED!

Never has NEVER WILL.

People keeps complaining about nerfing is bad for balanced yet they have not offered a viable alternative!

GloryFox · Apr 18, 2007, 03:56 PM // 15:56

Yes Winter can counter an entire fire build.

Winter + Mantra of Frost, Rangers +15 v. Cold damage armor Ele's with +10 v Ele +10 vs cold damage etc. etc.

That is one example of a counter to a build that focus's on countering the build of the month (Mark of Rodgort based builds in this case) and allows for some balance as well. After all how do people start to burn when hexed with Mark of Rodgort when all elemental damage is cold damage? It’s an old build for PvP and GvG but it would evolve again against the MoR Metagame over time.

Here is what you fail to understand about the Metagame. If 90% of the groups are playing a popular almost unbeatable build, then you by virtue of being in the 10% change your build to a pure counter build, then you have a stronger chance of winning 90% of the matches. There are no guaranteed chances to win.

Quote:

posted by crimsonfilms
People need to understand.

A COUNTER SKILL DOES NOT MEAN A SKILL IS BALANCED!

Got that?
If Eviscerate did 400 damage points + Deep Wound would it be balance because you can bring Aegis?

Mantra of Flame is a horrible skill for PvP. It is one dimensional. And in a game where you only have 8 skills to bring, and half are already set for the basics (res, energy management, generals buffs and/or survival like stances and healing, etc) a ONE dimensional skill is utterly dumb. Only in rare and extreme exceptions that they are brought.

Winter vs Fire eles? Its called meteor shower, its called gale, etc. One spirit is not going to counter an entire build. That is like NR is enough for hexes and/or heavy enchantment builds.

Last night in ob mode - 2 top 50 guilds played. One was using Eurohex (Migraine + Reapers Mark + Interupt ranger + 2 wars + 2 monk Aegis). The other was spec'd TOTALLY against it.
Divert Hex + Expel + LoD + NR.

Who won? Hexway did. 2 guilds about the same rank (top 50), but one rolled the other team in about 10 mins.
That is a DIRECT counter but it still failed.
Given this is a anecdotal proof, I think it gets the point across

A COUNTER SKILL DOES NOT MEAN A SKILL IS BALANCED!

Never has NEVER WILL.

People keeps complaining about nerfing is bad for balanced yet they have not offered a viable alternative!

I strongly disagree on offering an alternative as many in this and other forums have offered alternatives for many of the skill changes. Anguished was Lingwah instead of the Blood Song move was one very popular suggestion made by many people and would prove to be a stronger spirit for the channeling line overall without compromising communing line of skills in any way. That suggestion was completely ignored by ANET even though there was a very strong argument for alternative. For some odd reason even though the PvP and PvE crowd were in agreement ANET ignored the suggestion.

In the example you gave player skill overcame another good counter that does not mean the counter should not have been played or that the counter was ineffective. Not all players are created equal just like teams builds. Question what would happen if both teams ran the same build?

I remember when I won the county MtG tournament 8 years ago using a simple Black Land destruction build. The players I was up against were veterans using something that was popular and very powerful at the time and they were quite upset that I won considering I did not use or have any rare cards or expensive cards in my hand. In that instance player skill overcame a far more powerful deck. Heck I even beat a guy who knew I was going to play Land Destruction and he had the counter deck to my set of cards. Once again player skill overcame a good deck design. So your win / lose example does not mean you’re correct. You see this all the time in sports as well. ever watch football. Sometimes the better team loses because of one reason or another. That does not mean they should have run a different play pattern or played any different then they normally should.

What I still see are a bunch of players who by virtue of having gone through the pain of building a team build over time, unwilling to adjust their paradigm for the sake of allowing the game to evolve. How selfish is that?

crimsonfilms · Apr 18, 2007, 04:24 PM // 16:24

Quote:

If 90% of the groups are playing a popular almost unbeatable build, then you by virtue of being in the 10% change your build to a pure counter build, then you have a stronger chance of winning 90% of the matches. There are no guaranteed chances to win

And here is where you fail at understanding GW GvG meta and HA mechanics.

An imba build is only about half of you game.
Even if you address that half, your build is already gimped for the other half.

In HA, even if you spec for 90% of the meta, the 10% will likely to beat you and it only takes one defeat to not win hall and start over.

Quote:

In the example you gave player skill overcame another good counter that does not mean the counter should not have been played or that the counter was ineffective. Not all players are created equal just like teams builds.

Yes, that is why even the winning guild admitted that their build is in balance.
They did not 'overcome' them - they ROLLLED them.

A 'good' counter is understating it by a huge margin.

You also need to address that the counter guild has now a gimped build vs pretty much everything else - like warrior heavy, ranger spike, ele spike, ele AoE, condition heavy build, split build, etc.

A typical meta build can account for half of your matches every night. When you can't even win all of the matches you are supposed to - how is that 'balanced'??

Quote:

Question what would happen if both teams ran the same build?

I don't know. But how does that address the balance issue at hand? It does not.

Quote:

What I still see are a bunch of players who by virtue of having gone through the pain of building a team build over time, unwilling to adjust their paradigm for the sake of allowing the game to evolve. How selfish is that?

Again, this is popular comment by inexperienced PvPers.
Where did you base this comment?

In fact, if anything, one build wonder guilds should be complaining about nerfs. Because they are the most susceptible to losing.

This argument is based on assumptions. And my example above already proved you wrong. A guild totally embraced the very thing you guys think should work and it does not. And the imbalanced guild even admitted that the other team should have beaten them.

And how long should one wait to evolve?

SR imba is one year old.
Euro-Hexway are months old (pretty much since NF release)

Really evolve? PvPers evolve faster (metas are usually change once a season) than PvE and PvErs are the one asking to 'evolve'?

Captain Robo · Apr 18, 2007, 08:35 PM // 20:35

Eurohex is a very good build, but I don't think its unbeatable.

Its a very, very fast paced pressure build, and if you have good hexers backing up your team, its an uphill battle for the entire enemy team the whole way.

However, the reason it wins so much is that people play it on guild halls designed to force 8v8.

Before Nightfall was released, split builds were all the rage, but they've been seeing a large decline in recent months.

If you dissect the build, you'll see that the only real melee defense is the Aegis Chain and spammable offensive hexes provided by the Necro. Eurohex relies on the pressure from Migraine, overall degen, and stompy warriors to just overrun monks.

So really, the way you beat it is to disrupt the aegis chain and mitigate the offensive hexes. Spiking out the Migraine mesmer is top priority, then you go for the monks. If you can outlast the pressure of this build, it will fold; it has very little game at VoD.

This is why Power Block is seeing play. Most Eurohex builds either run a Power Block mesmer with Signet of Humility or the Burning Arrow to help them deal with splits.

Another great tactic against Eurohex is to force a split, because the build is designed to fight 8v8. Forcing them to split disrupts their hexing power and allows you to carry the match to VoD, where you have a greater chance of winning.

If two top 50 teams were running this build and its counter, and the counter lost, then I'd first blame the players. If the players were doing everything in their power to stop the other team, and still lost, then you have legitimate ground to blame the build.

But a few days ago, my guild was running a balanced build with a weapon rit

W/A Axe
W/E Hammer
E/Mo Blinding Surge with Aegis (This is what I played that night)
E/Me Icy Prison/Mirror of Disenchantment
Rt/Mo Splinter Weapon/Weapon of Warding/Nightmare Weapon
Mo/E LoD / Infuse / Deny Hexes
Mo/E RC Prot / Aegis
E/Rt Water Trident Runner

We took a guild running Eurohex to VoD on Jade Isle (I think it was Clan Fear, I will verify this), and lost due to player error at a crucial moment. The match was extremely well played on both sides, but they outplayed us at the end.

However, what I do know is that the same guild we faced ended up rolling Team Quitter that same night, with the same build as they did when they played us, within the first ten minutes.

Is my guild better than QQ? Probably not. Did we play well against that particular team, that particular night? You bet we did.

Nothing is completely, 100% ironclad and unbeatable. 1/4 of a victory is creating builds that can compete against the metagame and work well. The other 3/4 are player skill. If the build has the right tools to beat an opponent, you cannot blame the build.

TabascoSauce · Apr 18, 2007, 09:37 PM // 21:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Robo

Nothing is completely, 100% ironclad and unbeatable. 1/4 of a victory is creating builds that can compete against the metagame and work well. The other 3/4 are player skill. If the build has the right tools to beat an opponent, you cannot blame the build.

You have more experience than I at analyzing the metagame, so just to further my education I'd like to ask something. What do you think the appeal for ANet to immediately nerf skills is? Is that the easiest path?

Thanks!
TabascoSauce

Skuld · Apr 18, 2007, 11:20 PM // 23:20

To achieve a more balanced game -> boost confidence in the player base -> word of mouth spreads -> friends buy the game -> $$$

DreamWind · Apr 18, 2007, 11:33 PM // 23:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryFox

Here is what you fail to understand about the Metagame. If 90% of the groups are playing a popular almost unbeatable build, then you by virtue of being in the 10% change your build to a pure counter build, then you have a stronger chance of winning 90% of the matches. There are no guaranteed chances to win.

I see what you are saying, but what you are suggesting is not a balanced metagame. If one build is being played 90% of the time, the metagame is inbalanced, even if that build is beatable.

Here is the problem with the Guild Wars metagame...it can't change until Anet does something, because the metagame builds currently are so strong that there is not much point in playing anything else. Even the direct counter builds have a difficult time beating this hex build going around. That is a problem. Guild Wars has had a similar problem with different builds for a while now. At least in all of the recent Magic metagames, many different decks were seen winning tournaments.

Quote:

In that instance player skill overcame a far more powerful deck. Heck I even beat a guy who knew I was going to play Land Destruction and he had the counter deck to my set of cards. Once again player skill overcame a good deck design.

I agree that player skill is key. Looking at recent Guild Wars tournaments, the best guilds are usually at the top. These guilds, along with being the best teams however, are also the best at abusing current builds. Just because skill is winning doesn't mean the metagame is balanced. Actually, many of these players in said guilds have been complaining about the Guild Wars meta for a while now. When the top competition says something is wrong about the game, chances are they are right because they have the most experience...even more so than Anet.

This happens in Magic as well. I look back to the affinity deck from a few years back. That deck was ridiculous, and Wizards banned it. I think if Guild Wars has a problem, it needs to be fixed ASAP. Anet even has a better way to fix their meta (they can change skills at will), while Wizards has to ban a card outright.

Captain Robo · Apr 19, 2007, 01:44 AM // 01:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

What do you think the appeal for ANet to immediately nerf skills is? Is that the easiest path?

I don't know

That's what I'm trying to figure out

Also, who's the idiot?