Curse

Riotgear · Sep 21, 2007, 09:21 PM // 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

I don't get why ArenaNet like to buff the breaking skills they have, to the point at which the mechanics for balance can be manipulated in such a great way

GoLE was buffed because Elementalists were mostly constrained to an energy elite due to lack of decent non-elite energy management. Too many ele spells had costs balanced around the flawed concept that Energy Storage is energy management. It got nerfed down to 10 at zero spec because it was too good, and might have to get nerfed again.

As for why a lot of the other "breaking" skills get buffs, because of the mentality that more viable stuff creates more diverse gameplay, which is accurate to a point, but a lot of the buffs have been poorly thought-out and have been buffs of the worst kind: Pushing numbers up on poorly-designed skills.

A lot of it comes down to appeasing the playerbase. Plenty of people keep following the mentalities of "everything must be viable" and "nerfing is always a worse solution than buffing," and sometimes I suspect it's taking its toll on the balance process. Some changes that were potentially good (i.e. exhaustion and reduced costs on some binding rituals) were reverted because too many bad players cried. Et cetera.

wuzzman · Sep 21, 2007, 10:39 PM // 22:39

This an rpg not an fps. Lack of variety will kill this game, real variety anyway. A good guild wars player is able to adapt to all situations, whether tactically, or build wise. Lack of variety just turns this game into a very boring fps with flash buttons. Think fury ^_^.

Riotgear · Sep 21, 2007, 11:13 PM // 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

This an rpg not an fps. Lack of variety will kill this game, real variety anyway. A good guild wars player is able to adapt to all situations, whether tactically, or build wise. Lack of variety just turns this game into a very boring fps with flash buttons. Think fury ^_^.

Skill choices have more to do with what could crudely be described as comfort. That is, allowing players to play using a set of tactics that are most-compatible with their personal playing style. This is beneficial because "one size fits all" player templates don't really fit everyone equally, which means skill winds up taking a backseat to style and personal preference. Allowing players to make tradeoffs via build choices lets them do things the way they're most comfortable doing it. Skill choices also make opposition more interesting, because the strengths and weaknesses of your opposition can vary, and how you deal with it needs to vary accordingly. This introduces tactics to the mix.

Skill choices have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with adaptability because you can only pick your team's entire skill set once for the entire duration of a game, or in the case of HA/TA/RA, an entire series of games. You can't go back and put a copy of Mirror of Disenchantment on your team's skillbars if you decide you need it in the middle of a game.

Adaptable skills allow for adaptable gameplay, of course, but the ability to select a wide palette of skills has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to adapt by itself. Creating a build is not skill, and should not be a critical factor in the outcome of a game. Saying otherwise is like saying rock-paper-scissors takes skill because you can be clever and choose rock when they think you're going to chose paper.

ockhams · Sep 21, 2007, 11:56 PM // 23:56

rock paper scissors assumes 3 skills. its the worst comparison to guild wars ever. it has its legitimate parallels in that some skill sets will overpower other skill sets if you stand and fight, but with 64 skills per team you could design something (yes i'm saying designing might require a bit of skill also, omg) to have a reasonable answer for scissors as long as you turtle and split but you might be so gimped by rock that you have to attempt a gank immediately to even stand a chance, maybe creatively with a gank split that pulls back to face the split answer while ur turtle team tries to hold out against the rest.

but the bottom line is there is something that can be done besides throwing out your skill (rock paper scissors) at the flag stand like the retards who stand 8v8 and hope they win, that is the rock paper scissors tard zone. and if u call gw rock paper scissors i assume u are them.

i don't think guild wars in its current state is that sort of game. there are a few overpowered skills that should be touched up a bit but the overall gameplay is currently crippled by the copy/paste guilds who think that using the same build as a successful guild is going to make them better and by the tactically impotent who think that they have to either stand 8v8 or send a dedicated split. bullshit.

i would like to see VoD go back to the longer duration but keep the staggered NPC advance (maybe with adjusted AI where it's not possible to redirect their advance so drastically). but ultimately i'd like to see players play real answers for the current meta and the VoD limit to be extended so that players will feel legitimate in creating unique tactical plays over time.

Riotgear · Sep 22, 2007, 12:12 AM // 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by ockhams

rock paper scissors assumes 3 skills. its the worst comparison to guild wars ever. it has its legitimate parallels in that some skill sets will overpower other skill sets if you stand and fight, but with 64 skills per team you could design something (yes i'm saying designing might require a bit of skill also, omg) to have a reasonable answer for scissors as long as you turtle and split but you might be so gimped by rock that you have to attempt a gank immediately to even stand a chance, maybe creatively with a gank split that pulls back to face the split answer while ur turtle team tries to hold out against the rest.

You're missing the point, the point is that build selection is not an element of actual play. Some players seem to think that victory should be largely decided by build "cleverness" or similar such garbage, and promote skill viability as a means to create more "clever" builds as if there is some sort of tactical element in putting skills on your bar.

I might have been misinterpreting the post as another "we need more viable skills" post, if that's not what it was, I apologize. I don't see "build adaption" as having anything to do with skill regardless.

Quote:

and if u call gw rock paper scissors i assume u are them.

The warmth of your flames keeps me cozy at night.

ockhams · Sep 22, 2007, 12:42 AM // 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotgear

I might have been misinterpreting the post as another "we need more viable skills" post, if that's not what it was, I apologize. I don't see "build adaption" as having anything to do with skill regardless.

aw, thanks. now i'm all warm and cozy too.

but none the less i think the posts speak enuf. i'll let it stand. thanks for the sentiment.

wuzzman · Sep 22, 2007, 01:50 AM // 01:50

and on the other hand there are players that think rock vs rock is actually fun. Sure in 45 minutes you can always tell who is the best player ^_^.

TheOneMephisto · Sep 22, 2007, 03:39 AM // 03:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

and on the other hand there are players that think rock vs rock is actually fun. Sure in 45 minutes you can always tell who is the best player ^_^.

I prefer tactical and strategic play where the better teams actually win by forcing mistakes and capitalizing on them to games that are decided before the gates open.

Thomas.knbk · Sep 22, 2007, 08:04 AM // 08:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

and on the other hand there are players that think rock vs rock is actually fun. Sure in 45 minutes you can always tell who is the best player ^_^.

hell yeah.
chess > gw

Vaga · Sep 22, 2007, 10:30 AM // 10:30

When people say they want rock v rock they aren't talking about blockway v blockway but more something like balanced v balanced (prophecies) or kgyu build v kgyu build (factions). If the rock build is fun to play no one should have a problem with rock v rock.

Despozblehero · Sep 22, 2007, 10:39 AM // 10:39

well good thing were not online to play with rocks...

Phades · Sep 22, 2007, 04:03 PM // 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas.knbk

hell yeah.
chess > gw

And go>chess.

Unfortunately, the only way to increase the "moves" someone is capable of doing in GW is only achievable in one of two ways.

The first being changing the mechanics and objectives of the maps available. This can also include more dynamic changes, similar to the VoD that forced "adaptation" of sorts to the change in battle that it represented. However, VoD is rather limited and constraining.

The second method to increase the number of moves in creating more variety of skill effects, or having a greater selection of viable skills.

This is just the nature of the beast that is GW, unlike other games like Go or chess where your moves are fixed and irretractable making each of the moves hold more weight than any single "balanced" skill in GW. This makes planning ahead in chess and go, while reading your opponent far more important than what the actual peices are. This is no different than the complaints being flung around trying to compare GW to rock, paper, scissors. The only real difference is that the realization of a loss becomes more visible in GW and occurs far more swiftly under similar circumstances.

Another thing to consider, especially when trying to compare chess to GW, is that in GW people are allowed to and try to make a build with 7 queens and a king, instead of 4 pawns, a rook, a bishop, a queen and a king.

ockhams · Sep 22, 2007, 04:25 PM // 16:25

go? chess? those are freaking 1v1 board games that are turn-based. guild wars is in no way comparable to that crap. they maybe good games (i rather like chess, haven't ever tried go) but guild wars is something different altogether, not even related on any level except maybe that it can be player versus player. let's get back on topic plz: skill balance and VoD changes.

Phades · Sep 22, 2007, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Map = Board. Adequate coodrination between 8 can make a unit feel like a single mind and body versus another. Time units for skills is the same as being turn based. There are parrallels assuming optimal circumstances. <.<

Vanquisher · Sep 22, 2007, 05:25 PM // 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotgear

GoLE was buffed because Elementalists were mostly constrained to an energy elite due to lack of decent non-elite energy management. Too many ele spells had costs balanced around the flawed concept that Energy Storage is energy management. It got nerfed down to 10 at zero spec because it was too good, and might have to get nerfed again.

As for why a lot of the other "breaking" skills get buffs, because of the mentality that more viable stuff creates more diverse gameplay, which is accurate to a point, but a lot of the buffs have been poorly thought-out and have been buffs of the worst kind: Pushing numbers up on poorly-designed skills.

A lot of it comes down to appeasing the playerbase. Plenty of people keep following the mentalities of "everything must be viable" and "nerfing is always a worse solution than buffing," and sometimes I suspect it's taking its toll on the balance process. Some changes that were potentially good (i.e. exhaustion and reduced costs on some binding rituals) were reverted because too many bad players cried. Et cetera.

Having a 0 spec skill fuel e-management is retarded. Hell, people complained when people had to spec 10 to get a decent return.

wuzzman · Sep 22, 2007, 11:25 PM // 23:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

I prefer tactical and strategic play where the better teams actually win by forcing mistakes and capitalizing on them to games that are decided before the gates open.

of course, I do too, but when it takes 45 minutes for those numerous mistakes to become evident then rock vs rock is very, very, very, very stale.

Concerning Vega.
In propherices matches would litterally last till VoD across the board, regardless of rank. And those were the days when VoD was 30-45 minutes(don't exactly remember when it was changed). Only Evil, IQ, and WM would consistently roll teams in under 10 minutes but boy when they play each other using balance, talk about the LONGEST matchs in history, the only excitement in those matches was the fact that you knew both these teams were good lol.

I loved factions, monks had no energy management, dual extinguish, and various other staples. The meta was pretty diverse in gvg as well. But back in those days instead of 30 minutes at the flag stand it was 30 minutes turteling in your base, when the match should have ended 10 minutes ago.

Riotgear · Sep 23, 2007, 02:00 AM // 02:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

Having a 0 spec skill fuel e-management is retarded. Hell, people complained when people had to spec 10 to get a decent return.

There's been a bunch of stuff out there that barely required any investment for real return. Return, Shock, Gale, Deep Freeze, Mending Touch, etc.

The cost is generally baked more into the opportunity cost of taking an Elementalist secondary, which tends to be pretty weak by itself. Of course, on classes with a free secondary, that opportunity cost has become pretty low.

GoLE has really changed the attitude towards 10e skills, which has had both positive and negative benefits. The hex meta was a product of it, the current wards+aegis smothering meta is as well, but hexes and Aegis were both undesirable to run on a primary because the cost was too high before.

In that sense, I don't think GoLE by itself is a bad thing, it's probably better than when everyone had a copy of Drain Enchantment, but it needs a tap right now, or several 10e spells need to be adjusted for its presence. While I normally don't like the latter (see: Deadly Paradox, Mantra of Recovery, Mantra of Persistence), I see GoLE as a fill-in for the lack of decent energy management options several classes have, especially post-Inspiration nerf. The problem is that GoLE is better than Inspiration was at its prime, so it needs to come down.

twicky_kid · Sep 23, 2007, 02:07 AM // 02:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riotgear

In that sense, I don't think GoLE by itself is a bad thing, it's probably better than when everyone had a copy of Drain Enchantment, but it needs a tap right now, or several 10e spells need to be adjusted for its presence.

I cannot agree with that. At least drain enchant needed a point invest and had the condition of removing an enchantment.

Other than that I agree with you.

Bio-Flame · Sep 23, 2007, 02:11 AM // 02:11

Drain enchant - only 7-10 energy for like 8-10 points in Inspiration (I don't remember the actual figures but I can't be too far off).

GoLE - up to 25 energy return, used on 2 spells, for 0 investment and also allows the "fake" casts" and stuff.

GoLE is vastly superior.
Just nerf GoLE and on its own that will change the meta.

Riotgear · Sep 23, 2007, 02:31 AM // 02:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by twicky_kid

I cannot agree with that. At least drain enchant needed a point invest and had the condition of removing an enchantment.

Other than that I agree with you.

It depends whether or not you see packing that much enchant removal as a good thing or not, I never really liked the fact that it was being used primarily as energy management, yet was taking down enchantments as collateral. Kind of made real Elementalists impossible to field because you couldn't expect to keep an attunement up when it would just wind up being food.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bio-Flame

GoLE - up to 25 energy return, used on 2 spells, for 0 investment and also allows the "fake" casts" and stuff.

25 energy return at 0 investment? Please read the skill description again. Also, please research Drain Enchantment's OLD stats.

I'm not a big fan of the fake casts myself regardless, and I think GoLE should probably be changed to "Gain 100% of the spell's cost, max (blah)..(blah)" instead.