Curse

Turkey Baster · Oct 21, 2011, 04:26 PM // 16:26

I mean a lot of skills get nerfed because they're brought up to seven or eight times. It's a little late now, but why was this never implemented in HA, GvG, TA, HB?

Vanway · Oct 21, 2011, 05:06 PM // 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turkey Baster

I mean a lot of skills get nerfed because they're brought up to seven or eight times. It's a little late now, but why was this never implemented in HA, GvG, TA, HB?

cause its retarded. thinking balanced is always the most skillful is wrong, and imo, spike builds that rely on 5 copies of one skill are part of the way the game is intended to be played. those builds are weak because once they become meta they should be easy to counter, and its only when there is no counter that they should be nerfed, or another skill should be buffed

Spiritz · Oct 21, 2011, 05:47 PM // 17:47

Balanced and pvp dont really work too well - say in AB - would you like to be told what profession you can run ?
I see posts on here about players having problems getting into games , too many of xxx professions or not enough to form a full team.
If you then have it only 2 professions then it forces players to either play professions they dislike or they wont play the pvp.
Im sure ab would be boring as hell with only 2 monks on the kurz side and 2 on lux side - even if the monks are hybrids ( some kooky mo/w fighting build etc ) .
Infact i can imagine ab where one sides shut the monks down totally and the opposing side cant heal or taking one big kicking.
It was said once that the diversity of professions and builds in ab made the game interesting as you didnt always know what the opp side was running untill the battle started.

Prestige · Oct 21, 2011, 07:01 PM // 19:01

As Shard would say, Balance is mathematics.

wilebill · Oct 21, 2011, 07:40 PM // 19:40

A two per profession limit was suggested in the early days of GW. This idea was rejected by players. The developers also rejected it for unknown reasons.

I have always thought it was a good idea, but those who agree are in a small hopeless minority.

Prestige · Oct 21, 2011, 08:06 PM // 20:06

Also, it is not balance if you decide it is.

The ''Two of Every Profession Limit'' suggestion is something that was already developed. Know anything about this ?

Reverend Dr · Oct 21, 2011, 08:51 PM // 20:51

Limiting classes is a band-aid fix instead of addressing skills and templates that get too powerful the more of that skill (or type of skill) brought. Far better to address the root of the issue than to band-aid it and have it still lingering beneath.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanway

thinking balanced is always the most skillful is wrong,

This thread isn't about balanced [builds]. Many gimmicks have existed that conform to the 2 class limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

As Shard would say, Balance is mathematics.

This is so wrong its almost hilarious. Balance is about player satisfaction and nothing else. There are multiple ways to even approach balancing this game. Making the game similar to the LoD era, the Factions era, the pre-Factions era, making every class be viable, making every skill be viable, generally toning upn/down skill power. These are all valid ways to approach balance that are each going to end up with a different result.

What confounds the issue in the case of MMO's is that no matter which final result there will always be groups that find it satisfying and groups that do not. Attempting to find something that is satisfying to everyone is just going to be a fruitless venture. The true goal of MMO balance is to maximize those that are satisfied and minimize those that are unsatisfied. Mathematics is only related because it is a video game which is ultimately numbers.

Vanway · Oct 21, 2011, 10:58 PM // 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

This is so wrong its almost hilarious. Balance is about player satisfaction and nothing else.

thats such a stupid statement i cant be bothered to read the rest of what you wrote

Del · Oct 22, 2011, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanway

thats such a stupid statement i cant be bothered to read the rest of what you wrote

The funny thing is, he likely understands the game better than you do. Also, since I've started playing the game, the only things that get nerfed are things that people started whiny shitstorms over. Just to shut people up. They haven't gone out of their way to try to actually balance anything without someone whining first, so obviously Doc's statement is correct. Deal with it.

Prestige · Oct 22, 2011, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Actually no, this is where both of you are wrong.
Arena Net, in my opinion (which is the more plausible) is that the ''Balance'' you both like to call ''personal opinions'' are done by mathematics.

If let's say, player ''X'' says that ''Z'' skill is overpowered and player ''Y'' says that ''Z'' other skill is too, just because you say it is overpowered it does not mean it is. At all.

Balance is not what your personal statements may describe. It's simple mathematics formulas.

Quote:

satisfying and groups that do not [...] Attempting to find something that is satisfying to everyone is just going to be a fruitless venture. The true goal of MMO balance is to maximize those that are satisfied and minimize those that are unsatisfied [...]Mathematics is only related because it is a video game which is ultimately numbers.

Ok so what you are saying is that, if group of player A decides that X skill is overpowered and needs a nerf to meet the ''Balance'' norms, Arena Net should nerf it ? Even if it's extremely balanced ?

See, a game programmer doesn't think about balance on how ''Players would find it overpowered or not''. It's about formulas. Not about personal experiments.

Quote:

They haven't gone out of their way to try to actually balance anything without someone whining first, so obviously Doc's statement is correct. Deal with it.

Please tell me who whined about the whole Dervish class before the huge Dervish update which totally killed the Avatars ? Again, it's mathematics, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

player satisfaction and nothing else.

Orly ?
So by ''player satisfaction'' you mean stocking hundred of stacks of ectos because people like to use Shadow form constantly to be in god mode state and farming all day long, getting those globs, right ?

That's balance in your opinion ?

Chocolate_Prayers · Oct 22, 2011, 03:00 AM // 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

As Shard would say, Balance is mathematics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

Balance is about player satisfaction and nothing else.

Balance is a point of view;

Scissors: Rock is overpowered and imba, Paper is well balanced.

Premium Unleaded · Oct 22, 2011, 03:03 AM // 03:03

Wait, what? The derv update made the avatars useful, as opposed to between shit and borderline mediocre.

Swingline · Oct 22, 2011, 03:58 AM // 03:58

Useful as in downright overpowered. It took IDK how many skills updates to bring the dervish down from its godly thrown and its still a bitch to contend with. AoB & AoG flooded pvp like the bubonic plague.

As for the OP it was suggested and shot down a long time ago. Sure GWs was a different game back then but it's still not the way to fix pvp. Frankly pvp can't be fixed because anet in unwilling to dish out the resources and make the drastic changes that should have been done.

Del · Oct 22, 2011, 07:02 AM // 07:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

Please tell me who whined about the whole Dervish class before the huge Dervish update which totally killed the Avatars ? Again, it's mathematics, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

Join Date: Jul 2011

You weren't even here when people were whining about dervs, or at the update, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to use this utter flop of an example. Oh, and lol at "totally killed the avatars. Priceless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

"A bunch of stupid shit about math."

When shit's OP, the devs don't say, "hey let's do some math to balance this shit", no, being human beings with common sense and no extra chromosome, they figure out what makes the skill(s) in question OP, and they change it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

Balance is not what your personal statements may describe. It's simple mathematics formulas.

Except just about every time there is enough whining about skills they end up changed. So, yeah, I guess it isn't just math.

Also, 6/10.

*lemming* · Oct 22, 2011, 07:08 AM // 07:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

stuff

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

The Drunkard · Oct 22, 2011, 11:42 AM // 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

Balance is not what your personal statements may describe. It's simple mathematics formulas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestige

That's balance in your opinion ?

Yes, balance in an opinion, or something you have a subjective view on. Mathematics is objective, based on observations of the world we live in- an objective view. I'd check a dictionary if you don't know the meaning of the terms, they're not the same. Ursan was not nerfed by some random mathematics formula that gave it a specific time and date for the skill to be nerfed, it was nerfed because people were pissed by how one-dimensional the builds had become to clear elite areas, and how that one skill made a mockery of it. Same with spirits in pvp when they were first released, you could have your team rolling rits and destroy other teams because they could never get to you. Or with paragons rolling DA. Or with sins rolling SP/ AoD.

OT:
It would stop a lot of abuse from certain builds, however from the interviews I've heard about GW, the devs were upset by the role of the holy trinity, and how it would force pve players into only using certain profs. and specific builds. Now, pve is a lot different from pvp, but I kinda feel that it would cause the same issues. Plus, with the removal of heroes, players are forced into playing those builds.

superraptors · Oct 22, 2011, 12:03 PM // 12:03

basically codex on a larger scale except no skill restrictions, -1.

MithranArkanere · Oct 23, 2011, 01:52 AM // 01:52

Limiting the number of allies is not a good way to balance.
Limiting the stacked effects is.

Ritualists are a good example of 'self-balance' by limitation.
* Ritualist weapon spells:
- You can't have two at the same time on you.
- Many of them are limited by uses more than by time. No matter how fast you manage to attack while under the effects of Splinter Weapon, it will run out after X hits. With a preparation, for example, if you attack faster, you benefit more from it.
* Ritualist spirits:
- You can have a full party of people with spells like Heal Party, but bringing the same spirit will do nothing extra.
- With spirits that offer passive benefits, they lose health per 'activation' of the effect, so the more the effect is triggered, the less it lasts.

In the other hand you have things like shouts, that may affect the whole party, and stack with each other without limitations, and give effects for their whole duration. Making paragons exponentially stronger when they tag along other paragons, which got them nerfed to oblivion.

So no, limiting the number of party members with the same profession is not a good idea.
It's better to rework the skills to self-balance themselves.

Lanier · Oct 23, 2011, 05:13 AM // 05:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

There are multiple ways to even approach balancing this game. Making the game similar to the LoD era, the Factions era, the pre-Factions era, making every class be viable, making every skill be viable, generally toning upn/down skill power. These are all valid ways to approach balance that are each going to end up with a different result.

I too have observed that balance is, to a certain extent, subjective. I know that you are referring to PvP here, but the same is true for PvE balance. I have always been of the opinion that balance should focus more on skills - nerfing the ones that are relatively overpowered and buffing the ones that are relatively underpowered. However, I know that there are many who only look at the relative power of professions, while others still try to achieve an overall balance of power similar to how things were at the release of a campaign, or before a large, sweeping update.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that each individual's opinion of balance is different depending on the type of balance they are referring to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Del

You weren't even here when people were whining about dervs, or at the update, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to use this utter flop of an example. Oh, and lol at "totally killed the avatars. Priceless.

Many people lurk these forums before actually joining. Thus, you can not make this "you weren't even here..." statement solely by looking at his join date.

Del · Oct 23, 2011, 06:45 PM // 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanier

Many people lurk these forums before actually joining. Thus, you can not make this "you weren't even here..." statement solely by looking at his join date.

But he clearly missed all the whining about dervs, so yeah, maybe I can.