Curse

Seamus Finn · Oct 19, 2007, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Ketsu

Very few good players complain about utility builds being good if they take skill to play. Migraine mesmers and certain interrupt ranger builds come to mind.

Migraine mesmers take little to no skill to play.

Master Ketsu · Oct 19, 2007, 08:10 PM // 20:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus Finn

Migraine mesmers take little to no skill to play.

No they dont. But in comparison to most GW builds they do.

GW in general takes little to no skill to play.

Dzan · Oct 20, 2007, 12:49 AM // 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by glountz

I think people want metagame that rewards skill.
That's not "if rock meet paper, and that I got pawned by paper, the game is broken" but rather "if rock meet paper, and that I got pawned by paper whereas I'm a lot more skilled than the team using paper, then the game is broken".

When you are at the Magic Pro Tour, you are facing opponents who aren't likely to be any worse than you and you can assume that at best you are going to face someone who is equally as skillful as you. Your deck, or in this case build, are going to have a huge impact on whether you win. Among equals, Rock will beat Scissors most of the time.

The problem is GW has a small player base. So meeting equals is truly rare. Most times you are grossly overmatched or grossly undermatched. When Hexes was Rock, and Rock could beat everything that sucked. But... people want that. They just don't want it to be Hexes. They want it to be whatever their conception of balanced is.

To sum up, imagine a meta where everything was perfectly balanced. Hexes were as good as conditions were as good as spike as good as balanced. The team with Divert Hexes and Hex Eater will still beat the Hex stack team most of the time. The Hex stack team will beat the team with no Hex removal most of the time. So a balanced team should win 50% of the time, give or take assuming skill level is equal.

So whats the problem? The problem is people want the the balanced team to win more than 50% of time under those conditions. And that just won't happen in a truly "diverse" metagame.

Greedy Gus · Oct 20, 2007, 01:13 AM // 01:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzan

When Hexes was Rock, and Rock could beat everything that sucked. But... people want that. They just don't want it to be Hexes. They want it to be whatever their conception of balanced is.

You're missing the main point of that argument. People would prefer the game to be more focused on balanced based on it taking more skill to win with, where adaptability between spike, split, and pressure is key, opposed to overloading some simple strategy. It's not just because people like the term 'balanced' where everyone has their own little conception of it.

As far as comparing the top M:tG competition to GW's, there are some pretty key differences. Yes, the skill system in GW is based on or similar to the card/deck system. But GW also has a lot of RTS/FPS style player skill elements including micro, positioning, timing, dodging, deception, teamwork & coordination, etc. Looking at the two, I don't doubt what you say about player skill reaching a plateau in Magic and subsequently tournament play coming down to RPS more often. But in GW, there is a large enough player skill potential (multiplied by 8 for GvG) that I don't think that plateau has nearly been reached yet (still plenty of mistakes in tournament play) and the game does not need such strong RPS elements.

Dzan · Oct 20, 2007, 01:35 AM // 01:35

So how do you breed diversity without breeding overload? It seems mutually exclusive. You can definitely make middle of the road builds the epitome like the Gale Warrior days, but you do that by sacrificing diversity. I honestly don't know how you achieve diversity without overload, the two ideas seem inseparable.

Greedy Gus · Oct 20, 2007, 01:45 AM // 01:45

Oh sorry, I have no real care about diversity. Crazy & unique builds are fine, and a lot of players only play for unique skill interactions & odd synergies in build making, but I'd prefer to see them pretty much disappear when you get toward top play (unviable). In my mind, I'd rather see primarily balanced builds where the midline is interchangeable between a number of options based on playstyle, and that's where the general diversity would come from.

Zuranthium · Oct 20, 2007, 06:46 AM // 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzan

So how do you breed diversity without breeding overload?

#1 - Making it so that any given skill can not be equipped by more than 1 player per team (other than Rez Sig).

#2 - Shaping skills such that everything can be countered relatively well by many options and no specific counters exist (Mirror of Disenchant, Vocal Minority, Soothing, etc. are absolutely horrible skills for the game to have).

I'd also personally like:

#3 - Changing GvG maps so that there are 3 separate areas between each guild hall with a different point of interest in each area (one has the flagstand, one has a Shrine, and one is where the NPCs + Guild Lord go at VoD). Would hopefully increase the amount that people split. Would be accompanied with players rezzing every minute instead of every 2 minutes (possibly? have to think more about that one). Here's a picture of what it would roughly look like. It's probably obvious, but just to clarify, the solid lines in front of the Guild Hall areas are walls and the large shapes in the middle of the maps are mountains (or lakes, or whatever...just areas you have to go around).

The left entries into the Guild Halls could either be open or require a thief. I'm leaning towards "no thief" because it makes splitting more fluid. Also perhaps a good idea would be having a one-way Portal in the Lord room (I should detail this further later on and include NPC placement) that teleports to directly outside of the right gate, allowing for further split options (mainly when you're pushed into your base).

~Z

Farin · Oct 20, 2007, 07:33 AM // 07:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

#1 - Making it so that any given skill can not be equipped by more than 1 player per team (other than Rez Sig).

Terrible
1234

Zuranthium · Oct 20, 2007, 07:40 AM // 07:40

Yes, I was quite sure many people would think so, but describe why you feel that way.

~Z

DIH49 · Oct 20, 2007, 11:02 AM // 11:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

Yes, I was quite sure many people would think so, but describe why you feel that way.

~Z

Because it's a massive and crippling limitation on teams that has no real advantage to it? Or because it invites sloppy balance decisions that would leave individual skills overpowered because they can't be seen on a large enough scale? Maybe because it's a proposition with absolutely no good support behind it? How about because to try and make the rule specific you end up with all sorts of skills you want to be exceptions (like you started with Rez sig)?

Many people are under the silly impression that diversity is valuable for its own sake. It isn't. Diversity is nice because it breaks up the monotony of playing against the same thing. However, all stupid rules like the above do is enforce a different kind of monotony. Now instead of running into every team with 2 eviscerates you run into every team with 1 eviscerate and one devhammer. Or instead of 2 RoFs you get 1 RoF one Orison. It ends up just as formulaic but without any real advantages. Oh, sure, there are different skills being used, but it's just stupid to think that in itself is an achievement.

What you really want are multiple ways to attack a problem. Using blockway as an example, you want it to be viable to: entirely bypass the defense mechanisms, remove them layer by layer over time, create small but powerful holes in the defense mechanisms, and completely overpower the defense mechanisms. Silly, artificial rules aren't going to help you create multiple avenues of attack, they're just going to get in your way as you try to make builds which do.

Zuranthium · Oct 20, 2007, 06:37 PM // 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

Or because it invites sloppy balance decisions that would leave individual skills overpowered because they can't be seen on a large enough scale?

Large enough scale in comparison to what? PVE?

I think it would actually be a lot better for balancing skills. You already know that the skill can only be used by a single team member, so you just have to balance it around that, rather than balance it around 4 Searing Flames Elems or 5 Paragons or 8 Rits or 8 Necros...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

Because it's a massive and crippling limitation on teams that has no real advantage to it?

How about because to try and make the rule specific you end up with all sorts of skills you want to be exceptions (like you started with Rez sig)?

Why would any skill other than Rez Sig have to be an exception? Teams would just have to think a little smarter and more creatively when making a build. I'm all for that, *shrug*.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

Many people are under the silly impression that diversity is valuable for its own sake. It isn't. Diversity is nice because it breaks up the monotony of playing against the same thing. However, all stupid rules like the above do is enforce a different kind of monotony. Now instead of running into every team with 2 eviscerates you run into every team with 1 eviscerate and one devhammer. Or instead of 2 RoFs you get 1 RoF one Orison. It ends up just as formulaic but without any real advantages.

There's no reason why teams couldn't still run 2 Axe Warriors. One of them would just have to be a Cleave or somesuch.

But, maybe I lied when I said ANET could implement this without much work. There are balance issues that would have to be addressed. I'm thinking about pushing variety but I suppose there just aren't enough possibilities out there yet. You can't run a Healing Light Monk, or a Word of Healing Monk, or lots of other options. So, I suppose at this given point in time, you might be correct. Teams would still be running the same kind of Monks and the same dual Warrior frontline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

Oh, sure, there are different skills being used, but it's just stupid to think that in itself is an achievement.

In the situation I just responded to - yes. In general - no. IF you have a situation where many teams are basically running the same similar balanced build (lets say, an Axe War + Hammer War + Ranger + Mes + Elem + 2 Monks + Runner), but with lots of options for variation (such as, "What do we want this Monk to be? LoD? Healer's Boon? Healing Light? Glimmer of Light?..."What do we want this Axe Warrior to be..."Eviscerate? Cleave? Decapitate? Battle Rage?"), there is a great amount of player preference which comes into the picture and that makes things very interesting. Of course, IF that amount of diversity existed for all skill lines, people wouldn't constantly be running the same 8 character archetypes anyway (and that just adds even further to the variety).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

What you really want are multiple ways to attack a problem. Using blockway as an example, you want it to be viable to: entirely bypass the defense mechanisms, remove them layer by layer over time, create small but powerful holes in the defense mechanisms, and completely overpower the defense mechanisms. Silly, artificial rules aren't going to help you create multiple avenues of attack, they're just going to get in your way as you try to make builds which do.

It wouldn't be hard at all to do that with the "1 skill per team" limit. In fact, using blockway as an example, teams are already down to 1 Aegis.

Increasing the incentive to constantly split more (I know you didn't address the map idea, but it's part of my overall vision) would also automatically be a kind of antidote to creating teams that are incredibly static and 8v8 minded in the first place.

~Z

TheOneMephisto · Oct 20, 2007, 07:05 PM // 19:05

Artificial limits are never good. There are just so many good things in the game that would be so limited by a 1-skill per team limit. It's similar to suggestions that we limit teams to 2 of each primary or w/e, all it is is a non-intuitive artificial limit that makes little sense and covers up balance mistakes instead of correcting them.

What GW just needs is some more balancing of team templates along with the introduction of more skill-based general counters. The only thing I really dislike right now is the lack of fluid and improvisational splits. Why would you bother running a heal sig/sprint warrior nowadays when you could just run a rush/another attack warrior that always splits with the super-healing runner and is stronger at the flagstand? Make self-healing tools a little stronger but more importantly, more needed. Then, while doing that, you also want to introduce more tools that teams can use in multitudes of ways to deconstruct the opponent's gameplan. You want tools that are useful in almost every situation and that have many different uses.

Div · Oct 20, 2007, 07:13 PM // 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

#1 - Making it so that any given skill can not be equipped by more than 1 player per team (other than Rez Sig).

Reversal of fortune
Dismiss condition (when no RC)
Dshot on ranger + monk

'Nuff said.

moko · Oct 20, 2007, 07:32 PM // 19:32

not to mention warriors.

bulls strike? frenzy, rush? or dual axe wars? heh..

maybe for 4+ players, but not 2 copies, that's really too hardcore.

Thomas.knbk · Oct 20, 2007, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

I think it would actually be a lot better for balancing skills. You already know that the skill can only be used by a single team member, so you just have to balance it around that, rather than balance it around 4 Searing Flames Elems or 5 Paragons or 8 Rits or 8 Necros...

Then how about you balance searing flames or paragons because they're bloody overpowered instead? These kind of limits limit(!) your possibilities in a bad way as well. Eviscerate warriors are an awesome template for example, and it's in no way bad for the game to run two. Not to mention you'd have to rebalance everything if people can't run RoF on 2 monks anymore because it's the most awesome powerful monk skill in the game, the cornerstone of current monking and everything is balanced around it.

But hey, DIH49 said it better already. (congrats, that was a pretty good post)

Living Parasite · Oct 20, 2007, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Guess what, a skill is overpowered wether or not it is limited to one copy per team. The only skill that becomes significantly better b/c of mass equips is Searing Flames.

erk · Oct 20, 2007, 11:56 PM // 23:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Living Parasite

Guess what, a skill is overpowered wether or not it is limited to one copy per team. The only skill that becomes significantly better b/c of mass equips is Searing Flames.

Any direct damage or AoE skill becomes significantly better when there are mass equiped. It's called a spike team. Look at guild #16 [NoT] with 7 x Blood Spike 1 x Monk.

I don't see any 7 x Paragon 1 x Monk teams in GvG, guess why? they would be pwned.

Paragons are over rated, lots of things have better DPS, anyone can choose to carry "Shields Up" if the really want to annoy other Paragons and archers. As for the extra +10 armor they get over Assassins, Dervishes, and Rangers, it's trivial, their main armor difference is that they default to carrying a shield, and cast "Watch Yourself" when the other classes don't bother too. I have seen Paragon's running as hammers in GvG with Backbreaker and Aggresive Refrain as their speed buff, a warrior does a better spike. I have measured a Paragon/W cruel spear build on the Master of Damage and many other builds do far more sustainable DPS. The only thing good about the Paragon is the introduction of spears as the first practical one handed ranged physical weapon so you can still carry a shield, everything else is pretty ordinary.

DIH49 · Oct 21, 2007, 12:32 AM // 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuranthium

In the situation I just responded to - yes. In general - no. IF you have a situation where many teams are basically running the same similar balanced build (lets say, an Axe War + Hammer War + Ranger + Mes + Elem + 2 Monks + Runner), but with lots of options for variation (such as, "What do we want this Monk to be? LoD? Healer's Boon? Healing Light? Glimmer of Light?..."What do we want this Axe Warrior to be..."Eviscerate? Cleave? Decapitate? Battle Rage?"), there is a great amount of player preference which comes into the picture and that makes things very interesting.

People wouldn't run all those skills for the same reasons they don't run them now: they're bad. You seem to labor under the silly impression that forcing people to run bad things all of a sudden and magically makes them good. It doesn't. Just because I may now be required to run Orison over RoF doesn't mean Orison is good, it just means I can't run another RoF. In that same sense no one would run Cleave or BR when they could just go Hammer or Sword. Yes, you would have diversity, but it would be the stupid diversity of limitations rather than the fun diversity of viable options. You need to understand that these two sorts of diversity are vastly different, and one is valuable where the other is not. You are proposing we introduce the non-valuable version, and that is why you are meeting so much resistance.

Zui · Oct 21, 2007, 12:34 AM // 00:34

Artificial limits like "you can only bring X copies of a certain skill" or "you can only have X amount of a certain profession" are really dumb. Instead of fixing the problem with things being imbalanced, they just cover it up so it's slightly less obvious. If you walked into your bedroom, and it was on fire, would you just shut the door and expect it to put its self out because it's no longer as obvious that your room is on fire since you can't see it anymore? Of course not, and this is exactly why targeting the manifestations of problems, or making the problems harder to notice is a bad idea.

I would not have a problem with ANET saying "You can't use Assassins in PvP", or "No one can equip Searing Flames in PvP", though. Those aren't ideal solutions, but I think they're the easiest way to 'fix' some problems without limiting players as much (it would essentially be equal to Ether Renewaling something, but without making PvErs cry). ANET has proven to be inept at balancing their game, and at designing new classes/skills. The easiest solution to keep the PvErs happy, and make the PvPers happy is to just keep shit that makes PvP worse (but that PvErs really like) out of PvP. The best solution is obviously to just balance things, or in many cases to re-design them so they're balanced, but I really don't think that will ever happen because ANET doesn't know what they're doing.

Then again, I don't think ANET would ever go for this; they think they're really good at balancing their game, when they are in fact terrible. Oh well, when there's a mass exodus of PvP players because a better game has been released they'll figure it out. Maybe.

Zuranthium · Oct 21, 2007, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

Artificial limits are never good. There are just so many good things in the game that would be so limited by a 1-skill per team limit. It's similar to suggestions that we limit teams to 2 of each primary or w/e, all it is is a non-intuitive artificial limit that makes little sense and covers up balance mistakes instead of correcting them.

Limits are sometimes necessary and they already exist. A single character can only choose between two classes for skills, for example. I'm also pretty happy in MTG that 10 copies of Counterspell aren't allowed.

I do understand what you're saying, but those team builds which would be "limited" by the 1-skill rule are only like that because no comparable alternatives exist. If such things did exist, the rule would basically just force people to think more about their entire team and try new things. Not a bad outcome, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

The only thing I really dislike right now is the lack of fluid and improvisational splits.

I could agree with that. All of this talk just comes down to "what do we think would make the game more fun/interesting?", and this is at the very top of my list.

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

Reversal of fortune
Dismiss condition (when no RC)
Dshot on ranger + monk

It would be quite easy to turn Patient Spirit into the Healing Prayers version of RoF (decrease recharge by a second, increase the duration to 8 seconds, and make it end if damage is taken). Dismiss Condi isn't a needed skill at all...plenty of other skills out there that could be tweaked to give Monks lots of options for removal. Dshot limit could hurt some builds that are perfectly fine, but then maybe we should be asking why Bow Rangers are defined by this 1 skill that is better than some of the Elites they have...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mokone

not to mention warriors.

bulls strike? frenzy, rush? or dual axe wars? heh..

Plenty of stances out there that could be seeing play and taking the place of Frenzy + Rush for various Warrior bars if anyone cared to balance them. Bull's Strike is nice but I'm pretty sure people could cope with just 1 copy and use an alternate snare/KD/disruption mechanism. Already said this, but, Dual Axe Warriors isn't hard at all. There's no reason why Cleave + Dismember shouldn't be seeing just about as much play as Evis + Exec. I mean, let's just cut through to the point - you take Evis + Exec because it spikes better and the superior pressure that Cleave supposedly should have doesn't really exist.

I'm really not set on this 1-skill rule, I don't think it's crucial or anything, but "forcing" people to use a wider range of skills actually wouldn't matter so much anyway if the game favored variety and constant splitting -- you'd want to have characters in all positions (frontline, midline, backline) that utilize different skills in order to wring out as much adaptability as possible from your team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIH49

People wouldn't run all those skills for the same reasons they don't run them now: they're bad. You seem to labor under the silly impression that forcing people to run bad things all of a sudden and magically makes them good.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Obviously, some skill balances would have to take place for this to happen. I'm not suggesting that people should be forced to run Healing Lighting or whatnot in their current forms just for the sake of it (LOL...I'm sorry if my intent didn't come across clearly enough; I probably make too many assumptions in my mind about people being on the same wavelength as myself).

Btw, I'd really like to hear some feedback about the map change I talked about. What do people think about a GvG environment where constant splitting is the norm, not the other way around?

~Z