Curse

rii · May 12, 2007, 11:51 AM // 11:51

I'm sure this idea has been thrown around before, but with the release of ATs I thought I'd res it. Sorry for length.

__________________________________________________ _______________

After approx. a zillion years of Guild Wars... the game isn't balanced. I think it's probably a lot better in some ways than it was before, but worse in other areas. The problem of balance has probably influenced every tournament ever and I mean that in a bad way. With the release of AT's the problem of game balance will become a lot more important as relatively higher rating is put at stake (this is of course after the 'other' problems of AT are solved).

What would be optimal is for the game to be 'balanced', in that one strategy is not dominant over others which promotes diversity of build, etc. However, after all this time it's perhaps asking whether it's really reasonable to think that's ever going to happen. After that then, what can be done? The only way would be to arrange a system which goes around actual balance.

Roughly, balance has a lot to do with the 'equal playing field'. Most competitively balanced activities gain their balance in part through simply equal share of resources. In chess, each player has the same amount of pawns, knights, rooks, etc, and the board you play on is 2 identical halves. In sports like soccer (football =.-) the teams play on a symmetric pitch with the same amount of players, and in other sports like cricket each side takes turn to play in the batting/bowling role, and are treated the same in each.

In a way, that means that inequalities in these games are ironed over *to a degree* by being given the exact same resources to compete with. Even if in say, cricket, the games rules were massively imbalanced in favour of the bowling team, the game would still be competitive since *both teams have to bowl and bat*, so both can exploit the (bug)?. Of course, the game wouldn't be very entertaining and would be a horrible spectacle until the rules were changed to remove such inequalities, but that's another issue.

In Guild Wars resources aren't equal, since maps aren't symmetric (several aren't anyway) and because of the massive diversity of skills it's possible to outbuild your opponent (even if they can beat you tactically through splits, etc).

Therefore, to sidestep these issues couldn't GVG in tournament play (AT's, monthy tournaments) simply be forced into equality?

By that I mean simply only allow symmetric maps and make both teams use the same build. That way, apart from actual bugs within the map there can be no geographical advantage to either team, and with the same build there can be no strategic inequality.

Of course, in open ladder such a system would be clumsy and srsly rly suck, and would massively increase the time taken to play a game (bad), but since the rating gain is so small it can be left as a 'free' format where builds and maps can be abused/tested.

In ATs though there is a well-reported 'sitting around time' in between games (and because of the length of GVGs +compensation time that isn't really going to go away) so theoretically there's nothing wrong with using/modifying the recently implemented 'template' system to quickly transfer a build from one guild to another. (Assuming that's possible). In the downtime between matches therefore, guilds switch to the same build. As for map, perhaps each AT could be done on 1 map, which is symmetric and therefore offers no unfair advantage to either team.

There may be a few instances where this wouldn't be a good idea (when the other team has 4 heroes? - still even then you can run the same builds) but overall it might be worth trying. In terms of who chooses the build, assumingly the lower ranked guild should decide, and then in 'best out of 3 games' alternate after that initial pick.

The first issue with the above is would it be abuseable? Perhaps. I believe that picking spikes and massive gimmick pressure builds would be discouraged, since the other team is getting the same gimmick to shove in your face, and assumingly a higher ranked guild is going to be more efficient at running stupid builds than you are. Also, unless you have a *really* niche strategy then it's unlikely the other team won't actually understand WTF is going on (name one?).

Of course there is the possibility that really low ranked guilds will pick single-minded builds like obs flame spike if they get drawn against really high ranked guilds they know they won't beat with more flexible and open builds. However, that issue could be gotten past easily by making both guilds submit a build before being told who they'll face, so there's the possibility you'll get drawn against r2 , but then there's also the possibility you'll get drawn against r6k+ or someone of roughly your level. Hopefully that would promote picking builds that you can run well and not trying to luck your opponent.

Would the above be more fun that what is around at the moment? I would like to think it would be, at least the 'zomg balance' crowd wouldn't be able to complain about direct build wars (although they could complain that they couldn't run the other teams build, but that seems a lot weaker a complaint). Either way, the winning team can *only* be the guild that ran the build better, since there's no other way they can win.

Slightly contrived I know but I'm yet to find a killer criticism of this idea (apart from complaints about not being able to run your own build, etc), the question is would people prefer this to the current system?

Chuk Charcoales · May 12, 2007, 12:11 PM // 12:11

No, people would not prefer this to the current system. If both sides had the same setup in additon to playing on a map that is exactly symmetrical that would be very boring. That is one of the reasons why I dont watch sports very often. It would all boil down to who has grinded their stategy more.

Wise · May 12, 2007, 12:13 PM // 12:13

Couldn't a really bad team then just choose 8 monks and draw all of their games?

Patrograd · May 12, 2007, 12:29 PM // 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by rii

Slightly contrived I know but I'm yet to find a killer criticism of this idea (apart from complaints about not being able to run your own build, etc), the question is would people prefer this to the current system?

It would need to be a build that was imposed onto both teams from the outside (ie from Anet) and was known long enough in advance for teams to be able to practise it. In order to properly get to grips with a build you need to play it what? 100 times? More?

Even then I'm unsure about the idea tbh as it kills creativity in build design at the top of the ladder

FoxBat · May 12, 2007, 02:14 PM // 14:14

I know there are plenty of high-level players that revel in the GWFC days of a set of rigid high-skill templates, but this is antithetical to GW's design. There are billions of skills for a reason, and some degree of RPS ala MTG is exactly what the dev team is pushing, when they say buff mirror instead of nerfing aegis. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.

pah01 · May 12, 2007, 02:58 PM // 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

I know there are plenty of high-level players that revel in the GWFC days of a set of rigid high-skill templates, but this is antithetical to GW's design. There are billions of skills for a reason, and some degree of RPS ala MTG is exactly what the dev team is pushing, when they say buff mirror instead of nerfing aegis. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.

This is true and this is why high level players are leaving the game.

ANET YOU RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOING SUCK AT MANAGING A COMPETITIVE PVP GAME. YOU HAVE RUINED THE BEST RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOING GAME I HAVE EVER PLAYED.

Joe

rii · May 12, 2007, 03:14 PM // 15:14

Quote:

No, people would not prefer this to the current system. If both sides had the same setup in additon to playing on a map that is exactly symmetrical that would be very boring. That is one of the reasons why I dont watch sports very often. It would all boil down to who has grinded their stategy more

1 ) What makes it boring? Yes, each game you play will be with the same build as your opponents, but that doesn't mean the next game will be at all the same. And I don't see what makes mirror matches boring, TBH they're just the same as any other game.

2 ) What exactly does 'grind their strategy' mean? I interpret this as meaning the person who plays the build better will win.... although you seem to add an element of 'grind' to it to imply negativity. I am of course working on the assumption that the person that wins should be the one who played better, not who picked a bunch of skills the other team can't carry counters to.

Quote:

Couldn't a really bad team then just choose 8 monks and draw all of their games?

Erm... yeah =.- However I would hope that the AT system works so if you draw all your games you don't get anything for it, either by giving no points or very few. Details like that can be ironed out to promote builds that... involve trying to win....

Quote:

I know there are plenty of high-level players that revel in the GWFC days of a set of rigid high-skill templates, but this is antithetical to GW's design. There are billions of skills for a reason, and some degree of RPS ala MTG is exactly what the dev team is pushing, when they say buff mirror instead of nerfing aegis. Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.

While I do think that the old game was much better (and would pick that over the current game) that's not quite what I'm arguing here. There are 'billions' of skills to use and this system would not punish people for using them, it would merely mean that when you play a tournament game it's on fair terms. Each game in an AT technically could be a totally different build, diversity over the course of a tournament doesn't necessarily drop off so no, I'm not proposing everyone runs the same exact same build in every game ever in the OP. Build diversity should be maintained to a reasonable level.

Quote:

It would need to be a build that was imposed onto both teams from the outside (ie from Anet) and was known long enough in advance for teams to be able to practise it. In order to properly get to grips with a build you need to play it what? 100 times? More?

Even then I'm unsure about the idea tbh as it kills creativity in build design at the top of the ladder

I would hope that such a system described, while not killing build diversity, would lean people towards fairly generic builds that aren't easily countered and involve their own application to win (as opposed to gimmick pressure/spikes/splits as listed above) and therefore a range of builds, but all with fairly similar underlying principles. I doubt it would end up in the GWWC meta where you can tell someones 8 skills by looking at their primary/secondary, but general templates such as 2melee/mesmer/ranger/2el/2mo would be produced - with variety coming in the details.

While that doesn't 100% answer your criticism I couldn't really say what would happen without actually testing the idea.

I don't think you can have high build diversity whilst attempting to promote a competitive scene without game balance. Having both build diversity and competitiveness requires balance. However, if you trade one off against the other you can work things around.

If you get rid of the concept of a competitive scene and just had a ladder where people farmed with whatever broken skills they can find (=.-) and everyone just got on with it, you don't need balance.

If you want a competitive scene and you don't have balance you can easily solve the problem with this proposal and sacrifice build diversity to just elimate the balance problem and end the 'build wars'.

Of course, the best solution is to just balance the game and get both, but after this much time how likely is Guild Wars to get it? I would say 'not very'.

Patccmoi · May 12, 2007, 04:01 PM // 16:01

I wouldn't be opposed to that as some sort of special tournaments for example. Could be tested this way too, etc. But to limit tournaments to this would be a very bad idea imo. There is a lot of tactics and skill and FUN that involves actually beating an unexpected build with something different and adapting your build to what you'll face. If both teams know in advance exactly what they'll face, then this whole aspect is took out and i don't think that's for the good overall.

I think that map randomization alone would do so much good to the metagame atm. Most gimmicks require specific maps to work on and in a tournament i doubt a team would run 5 SF Eles if they have low chance to end up on a map where it'll work, and if they do and end up in a map that doesn't well it was their fault for picking a gimmick build more than 'bad luck'.

I'd be much happier with random map selection than forced builds and maps personally. Let people run what they want, but they need to pick something that will work to some extent on any map to have the most chance to win and few gimmicks can. Balanced setups that are both strong in 8v8 and split and can adapt strategy are the only real builds that would be 'safe' to bring, but let every team decide what kind of balance they prefer to run. Not all teams want to play with an Hydro and a BSurge.

Wasteland Squidget · May 12, 2007, 09:29 PM // 21:29

A while back, I suggested to the devs that there be ATs/ladder for GvG where the teams choose from a few preset builds.

Consider fighting games - in a fighting game, you choose your character, and take all the strengths and weaknesses that go with that character. If a character is slow, you have to play slow. If a character has no ground game and can only play through aerial attacks, you have to play around that. You can't just pick and choose the really good moves from all the characters, you have to take the good along with the bad. This allows fighting games to be reasonably well-balanced, because every amazing character has some drawbacks or weaknesses.

To apply this to Guild Wars, simply create some GvG builds that are balanced against one another. You don't have to worry about broken skill synergies or combos, because you're choosing every skill - you can balance every build with the right amount of removal/disruption/whatever to beat every other build. You can even put in some caster-spikeish gimmicks, so long as you've given the other builds the necessary tools to beat those gimmicks.

This makes build choice more a matter of playstyle than success. If your guild likes playing heavy pressure builds, you take the heavy pressure build and don't have to take random losses to spike teams with triple Aegis + wards + two water eles. If you take the defensive-balanced build, you stop eating losses to random gimmicks because you didn't have the right counter. If you take the caster spike build, you don't beat teams who are massively better than you, because every build has the right tools to beat you if they play properly.

The devil would be in the details, naturally. Balancing several builds against each other like that would not be an easy thing. However, it would be easier than balancing every template and synergy in Guild Wars, and the results would (IMO) be a better competitive game.

Greedy Gus · May 13, 2007, 12:58 AM // 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by pah01

This is true and this is why high level players are leaving the game.

ANET YOU RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOING SUCK AT MANAGING A COMPETITIVE PVP GAME. YOU HAVE RUINED THE BEST RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOING GAME I HAVE EVER PLAYED.

Joe

qft

Squidget's idea would solve the problems, but I don't see Anet doing anything like it because they don't really care about a highly competitive game, they just want the appearance that some competition is going on.

DutchSmurf · May 13, 2007, 09:26 AM // 09:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

The devil would be in the details, naturally. Balancing several builds against each other like that would not be an easy thing. However, it would be easier than balancing every template and synergy in Guild Wars, and the results would (IMO) be a better competitive game.

There will be that many details and that much time needed for it, not only to start it but also to keep them balanced, that it just isn't worth it. After all, how are you going to do it without getting the same buildwars we got now? If you give one build 3 melee characters, then all builds need enough defense to deal with that. If you include some kind of spike, all builds need something to stop that. Same with hexes, conditions, ect, ect. You can of course say "just don't allow 'gimmicks' like that", but Anet isn't going to restrict possible builds that much. And the players don't seem to want that either. After all, we never even really discussed limiting builds to 3 of the same profession (which should really harm almost all gimmicks) and then use a build of 1.5 years ago as only example of why we shouldn't. Which isn't even a good example anymore now we got paragons and dervishes.
Which brings us to another problems. Anet still thinks that you can/should be able to play even if you don't have all chapters. So in order for this to work, you either need to allow unlocks of chapters someone doesn't have, or use core skills only. And although making builds with core skills only can be fun, I doubt it is what everyone wants.

So you can try to make 6 (or more) builds that are balanced against eachother without being the same. I doubt it is possible. And no, dropping 2 warriors and taking 2 dervishes while you keep the rest the same doesn't count as a different build.

rii · May 13, 2007, 10:15 PM // 22:15

Quote:

Patccmoi

While there is a game to the second-guessing in 'best of 3' and tactical adaption in-game vs different builds this is kind of a tradeoff. Yes, you don't get that element of the game, but you also don't get people pulling retarded gimmicks out in an effort to win games they know or think they might otherwise lose, and *hopefully* retarded gimmicks in general. It's hard to say what it would be like but a stronger competitive element can make up a lot of ground, so the sacrifice of these various 'build diversity' arguments might not be such a big deal if the game turned that way.

On the subject of map selection randomised maps would work just as well in a format as proposed since that adds another incentive not to run stupid stuff. The main argument about maps is to make sure none of them are biased (discluding bugs) to the attacking or defending team (since per map you only play attack or defense, not both), since if you did get a fair playing field in terms of what's on players bars and then it turned out the maps you were playing on just weren't fair anyway (which this fair playing field exagerrates) then that's just no good either.

Quote:

Wasteland Squidget

That sounds decent but would be pretty dam hard to execute (in comparison to OP proposal). Balancing the 'gimmick' builds against the 'balanced' template probably wouldn't be as hard, but IDK what balancing the gimmicky builds against each other would be like to do.

What you're effectively saying is to scale the game down some, making balancing easier... whereas I'm arguing to just scrap build diversity *per game* and standardise everything, which as said by several people is less 'fun' but probably more reliable in terms of competitiveness.

I suppose no-one is going to go for either of these arguments because the box the game came on stated (if I remember) 'your skill decides' and 'trillions of skills to pick from', and the two don't seem to get on well when those skills aren't balanced. The recent BuildWars has eliminated the 'your skills decides' element (to enough of a degree at least - it's not as total as it could be), and back in the GWWC when builds were much more standardised there was a lot of complaining about the lack of 'trillions of skills to pick from' when nothing else but gale war, esurge mesmer, boonprot, cripshot, emo etc was competitive. People will just bug for that till either they get it or... leave... as they have done =.-

But,

Quote:

I don't see Anet doing anything like it because they don't really care about a highly competitive game, they just want the appearance that some competition is going on

Yeah that seems about right.

Genova · May 14, 2007, 10:26 AM // 10:26

I don't understand what the posters above are saying. Is this discussion about balancing builds between gimmicky and balanced ? I think that it is not possible. Skills in GW have a subjective value. Some skills are useless outside of a certain build or skill combination. Some classes are simply better than others and there isn't balance between them. If each class had a clearly defined role, making a team build would be a lot simplier, at the cost of more being more predictable though.

The line of true balancability have been crossed a long time ago I think. With only 64 skills in a build, it is impossible to bring enough utily, damage and healing power to be trully balanced. The devs created skills coming from nowhere (most likely to counter overpowered builds / tactics), and unbalancable from day one, because they are not expansion of existing "balanced" skills.

Take a look at the warrior class design, it's one of the simpliest, but effective concept. Each skill has an innate strength and cost. If you want to make two skills into one, it becames elite (eviscerate = dismember + executioner's) or conditional (agonizing = adrenal crit chop). If you add a particular effect on a skill (like a condition or +damage) you increase his cost slightly. In a system like this you can make an effective build by tweaking the amount of utility or damage output you want out of the character.

This is also true with most monk skills. The balance between orison, dwayna's kiss, heal other, etc... which are pure healing spells is quite simple to understand. Same goes for the elite skills choice, whatever you choose to do, there is a clear line of balance between block, condition/hex removal, energy management, self/others healing and damage reduction.

The players themselves could balance such classes' skills because there is a simple and clear concept behind them. There is a standard and basic skill, which is used to balance the other skills. Unfortunately, while these two classes are nearly balanced, most other classes do not have a strong concept behind them. What's the role of necros ? Beside hex removal, interrupt and snares they can do anything from enchantment removal, condition removal, self healing, damage (spike or pressure), shutdown, punishment, buff, etc...

This lack of focus in the design of the classes makes them difficult to balance because there isn't a clear line between what they should do or not. And the necromancer is a core class, what about dervishes, paragons, ritualists, assassins ? Where is the non-elite version of ether prodigy ? searing flames ? zealous benediction ? where do these spells come from ? While I understand that creativity is a good thing, that's exactly where the devs did a mistake, by creating skills from nowhere, by placing them in the wrong attribute line, etc... The new skills aren't all bad, hex eater vortex for example is an interesting elite because it helps bar compression (shatter hex + shatter enchantment).

If all classes had a clear functionality like warriors who need 3 attacks, 1 utility, 1 ias, 1 speed boost (or snare), healing signet + rez signet, balancing the game would be an easier task. I think that this is the right time to discuss what the standard builds of each class should be. When you have this basic bar (according to what the role of the class is), then you can begin to balance skills because you know how to do it : elite status for bar compression or skill that the class isn't intended to have, conditional use or increased cost for more powerful ones, etc...

If this work on the classes' design isn't done, the game will never be balanced. However once done, you can exchange offense for defense, interrupt for disruption, etc... Gimmicky builds will always have their place but will not be as imbalanced as they are now.

rii · May 14, 2007, 11:13 AM // 11:13

Quote:

Genova

This isn't a discussion about the sordid details of game balance. The main point of the OP is that game balance is seemingly well out of reach, and after that asking: 'is there an effective way to make PVP competitive without balancing the game?'

Roughly, the OP proposes simply making guilds mirror the build of the other team (as opposed to bringing 2 builds each), hopefully discouraging gimmick builds but at the very least making the game a level playing field so that build diversity is maintained but the aspect of 'your skill decides who wins' is promoted over any 'build wars' style game that it otherwise would be due to as you say, the massive number of skills and styles which have and seemingly will continue to be not balanced against one another.

DutchSmurf · May 14, 2007, 12:44 PM // 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by rii

Roughly, the OP proposes simply making guilds mirror the build of the other team (as opposed to bringing 2 builds each), hopefully discouraging gimmick builds but at the very least making the game a level playing field so that build diversity is maintained but the aspect of 'your skill decides who wins' is promoted over any 'build wars' style game that it otherwise would be due to as you say, the massive number of skills and styles which have and seemingly will continue to be not balanced against one another.

That idea is just stupid for the simple reason that although pressing 1+2 after your targetcaller counted down from 3 is very easy to do, but needs a couple of matches to be done prefectly. Topguilds like EW and eF, although very good, normally can't play a real spikebuild that well at all without training for it first. So instead of getting skill decides or build wars, you need to train to play for every possible build you might have to play. So the person most used to a build wins.

TheOneMephisto · May 14, 2007, 09:10 PM // 21:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchSmurf

That idea is just stupid for the simple reason that although pressing 1+2 after your targetcaller counted down from 3 is very easy to do, but needs a couple of matches to be done prefectly. Topguilds like EW and eF, although very good, normally can't play a real spikebuild that well at all without training for it first. So instead of getting skill decides or build wars, you need to train to play for every possible build you might have to play. So the person most used to a build wins.

Meet FoC spike. I may be wrong, but I don't think that EW actually played FoC that many times before pulling it out in tourney.

DutchSmurf · May 15, 2007, 09:49 AM // 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOneMephisto

Meet FoC spike. I may be wrong, but I don't think that EW actually played FoC that many times before pulling it out in tourney.

And there was probably a reason FoC got nerfed soon after that one time. And the second time they tried it it just didn't work. But that wasn't my point. If their opponent would have been running FoC-spike too, but with lots of practice, I doubt if EW would have won.

Mylon · May 26, 2007, 06:32 AM // 06:32

I think this would make for a _lot_ of interesting builds.

Consider, if you make a build with no monks, your enemies would be at a similar disadvantage. If you've trained to play such that you have to save your own butt and retreat when stuff is getting heavy (or know to recognize that you have 4 warriors charging down your throat before they get to you and adrenal spike), then you could have a significant advantage over a team that is used to getting 2000/min or so health from their monk. But yes, no monk teams would be viable. Which, considering you'd be going from 6 non-monk characters to 8 possible non-monk slots, actually increases diversity.

And maybe we'd see a lot less battles going for 30+ minutes.

I give it my thumbs up.

drekmonger · May 26, 2007, 10:23 AM // 10:23

Squidget's idea ftw.

Another way of doing it: there could two "red templates" for each core class, and one for each expansion class. In the ATs, each player would have to select a red template and no template may have more than one instance per team. An indicator on the party window tells you who on the team has conformed, and where the problems are.

Selecting a red template locks your skill bar, secondary class and attribute spread, save for a single (non-elite) wild card skill. No template would include a rez of any sort, so you'd have to sacrifice your rez signet to play outside the box with a given template.

Red templates ignore skill unlocks, so a player with just a single chapter or with few unlocks could participate in GvG (or HvH ... ...) from day one. You'd only need the unlocks for the wild card slot, and even that would be a rez signet 5 out of 8 times.

Via simply not including unbalanced skills or concepts in red templates, each team would be more likely to be balanced against another, yet there would still be some variety for surprise/interest.

Seasonally, the top teams are asked to help redefine the red templates.

The could also be an excuse to reduce the wait timer between AT matches, since it would be a little easier swap out builds.

For practice, players can enter a "red template only" match, for a slightly higher K than the normal ladder play.

Genova · May 26, 2007, 09:31 PM // 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mylon

I think this would make for a _lot_ of interesting builds.

Consider, if you make a build with no monks, your enemies would be at a similar disadvantage. If you've trained to play such that you have to save your own butt and retreat when stuff is getting heavy (or know to recognize that you have 4 warriors charging down your throat before they get to you and adrenal spike), then you could have a significant advantage over a team that is used to getting 2000/min or so health from their monk. But yes, no monk teams would be viable. Which, considering you'd be going from 6 non-monk characters to 8 possible non-monk slots, actually increases diversity.

And maybe we'd see a lot less battles going for 30+ minutes.

I give it my thumbs up.

I have seen a non-monk all spittable characters being played. I guess it is more the fact that most teams don't want to play like this than anything else. Ok I lied a bit, they only used a monk runner with SoR, and the other characters were warrior, ele, mesmer, sin, etc... With this stronger offense they were able to always have the flag stand while killing npcs. The other team which was Battle Gods could do nothing about it (maybe because of surprise), and lost at VoD unable to kill enough NPCs although they have a decent split. My point is that instead of saying that something is impossible because nobody does it, do it and tell us about.