Curse

Mr Urthadar · Jun 22, 2006, 05:42 PM // 17:42

* Please, for the sake of argument, just assume that Gimmic Builds are a problem.

The last Weapon Of Choice (38) brought up an interesting discussion of gimmic builds. There seems to be two opinions on these `gimmic' builds.

1) Well, if rifts can run fast-casting air spike, you can too. So it's fair, stop whining.

2) The game *ought* to be played out through tactics (implying that a balanced build should be run). Gimmics are ruining the spirit of the game - strategy.

The problem that balanced builds run into is that gimmic builds are difficult to combat with balance. One caller even lamented that air attunement should be moved to energy storage, which would be a complete nerf of the Me/e air-spiker.

Probably the most thoughtful suggestion on how to combat gimmic builds would be to allow people to swap skills during the match. The requisites of the swap could be `standing by the guild lord for X seconds' or 'take %x DP.' I have not really considered the possible problems with this approach. At first glance it sounds feasible, and it definitely puts the `strategy' back into GvG.

Another neat way to combat these gimmic builds could be with a `Chameleon' skill. This skill itself does nothing until activated. Once you activate the skill, you have to choose which skill to replace it with, via your `skill list dialogue box'. The replacement is permanent.

An example of how this would work...

Guild X == Balance
Opponents == Ranger-Spike

Guild X notes the rspike, and the following professions make adjustments ->

Warriors 1 & 2 - `Chameleon's with Shields Up.
Mesmer - `Chameleon's with CoF

I don't know if this is a good idea or not. It sounds good on paper - or perhaps I am myopic. Are gimmic builds worth this new `Chameleon' skill (or some type of alternative)? Or should we just learn to live with Gimmics?

Thoughts?

ju

TheOneMephisto · Jun 22, 2006, 05:53 PM // 17:53

I don't really think that gimmiks are a real problem. While running balanced, you can split and just out-maneuver them, considering that generally they don't work nearly as well in a split situation. I'll admit that builds like rift's build are good because they are gimmiks that can split, but it becomes much harder to spike and such when split. Gimmiks may be hard, but they are beatable with the right tactics.

EDIT: Didn't notice "* Please, for the sake of argument, just assume that Gimmic Builds are a problem." I'm not understanding why we're discussing it if it's only theoretical though.

suiraCLAW · Jun 22, 2006, 06:00 PM // 18:00

IF gimmick builds were a problem, I think the ideal solution would be that every build that wants to enter needs at least 1 warrior primary and 1 monk primary. I don't know that much gimmick builds with both a warrior and a monk.

The things you suggested seem impossible: the ranger spike will probably have some chameleon skills too: so if they see that you stop their spike by using hexes they will likely use that chameleon thingy to get some more hex removals. But if you keep flashing them, they would take extra condition removal.

Another note is that such a chameleon skill (or a way to change skills) would certainly make the matches a lot longer: everybody would take the perfect counters against the foes build.

Off-topic: I don't think gimmick builds are a problem, they're just a part of the game.

lyra_song · Jun 22, 2006, 06:09 PM // 18:09

You cant prepare for every build all the time. You can only cover your bases so far. Its all part of the game.

If i make a anti-warrior mesmer, i dont except to survive vs an airspike team..because i cant do both without sacrificing overall efficiency.

Aug · Jun 22, 2006, 06:12 PM // 18:12

This game is very similar to M:TG. The way M:TG handled "gimmicks" was to allow players to use a sideboard between games. And it was a double edged sword, because the sideboard was large enough to change from gimmick to gimmick, sometimes... so playing the meta-game and swapping your sideboard to handle the current gimmick could bite you in the ass when your opponent did the same to switch gimmicks.

Now, for GW, you usually only face a guild once a night, and if you do face them again, you aren't likely to know it. As such, a method for swapping skills within the match would be necessary. The chameleon idea sounds kind of cool. Basically it's a "wild card" skill that when activated pulls up your skill list and allows you to replace it. I like that idea.

Quote:

The things you suggested seem impossible: the ranger spike will probably have some chameleon skills too: so if they see that you stop their spike by using hexes they will likely use that chameleon thingy to get some more hex removals. But if you keep flashing them, they would take extra condition removal.

What's wrong with that? If you're running a balanced build, that won't be really an issue. You'll be running both hexes and conditions, so they can't really "sideboard" that effectively against you, while on the flip side they're running a gimmick that has a set of skills that directly counters it.

Lando Griffen · Jun 22, 2006, 06:19 PM // 18:19

If you'll notice, the best guilds are running some form of balanced. The thing that makes a gimmick build a gimmick is that it has a lot of counters. When you make a build for gvg, you need to take into consideration the possibility of facing these groups. The idea about changing skills after the match has started...no offense, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. So you come up against fc air spike and you just have your team switch to mantra of lightning or something...much more fair than thinking of the possibility before the match and preparing to split if necessary. The thing about gimmicks, if you play them really well and adapt them, you might very well earn yourself a spot in the top 50, but beyond that, teams are going to be prepared to beat you.

Mr Urthadar · Jun 22, 2006, 06:26 PM // 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lando Griffen

If you'll notice, the best guilds are running some form of balanced. The thing that makes a gimmick build a gimmick is that it has a lot of counters. When you make a build for gvg, you need to take into consideration the possibility of facing these groups. The idea about changing skills after the match has started...no offense, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. So you come up against fc air spike and you just have your team switch to mantra of lightning or something...much more fair than thinking of the possibility before the match and preparing to split if necessary. The thing about gimmicks, if you play them really well and adapt them, you might very well earn yourself a spot in the top 50, but beyond that, teams are going to be prepared to beat you.

I'm certainly not `top-tier' GvG -- however, when top-tier guilds have trouble facing a spike while running balanced, then perhaps something should be considered.

ju

Aug · Jun 22, 2006, 06:39 PM // 18:39

Is that really considered a "gimmick build" when it was fueled by a broken game mechanic? ANet altered the effects spirit deaths had for Soul Reaping shortly after that match, I believe.

I wonder how that matchup would turn out now, with the SR change.

Mr Urthadar · Jun 22, 2006, 06:44 PM // 18:44

Well, given that it was possible *at the time* does make it a gimmic build, I think.

The question is, what would the `chameleon' skill break? Does it not make GvG more strategic? It certainly DOES seem to deter 3-2-1 builds.

ju

Aiiane · Jun 22, 2006, 07:57 PM // 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Urthadar

I'm certainly not `top-tier' GvG -- however, when top-tier guilds have trouble facing a spike while running balanced, then perhaps something should be considered.

ju

Something was considered, namely the inability of the thief to use teleporters on the Imperial map which made it impossible for a balanced build to split and thus turned it into a minature version of the Hall of Heroes, screwy altar-holding dynamics and all.

fb2000 · Jun 22, 2006, 09:03 PM // 21:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Urthadar

I'm certainly not `top-tier' GvG -- however, when top-tier guilds have trouble facing a spike while running balanced, then perhaps something should be considered.

ju

I cant seem to understand why everyone is soooo negative toward spikes.. its just another build? if you think its "cheap" you should be able to score victory

if you lose from a spike, it doesnt mean spiking is cheap and should be nerfed. adapt

and I wouldnt use a pretty much unique build (im a noob, but i think it wasnt used before in this manner) as the spike on the finals as an argument, it clearly involves much coordination, and was nicely thought thru

just my opinion (realize i might be laughed upon, but..)

TheOneMephisto · Jun 22, 2006, 10:47 PM // 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by fb2000

I cant seem to understand why everyone is soooo negative toward spikes.. its just another build? if you think its "cheap" you should be able to score victory

if you lose from a spike, it doesnt mean spiking is cheap and should be nerfed. adapt

and I wouldnt use a pretty much unique build (im a noob, but i think it wasnt used before in this manner) as the spike on the finals as an argument, it clearly involves much coordination, and was nicely thought thru

just my opinion (realize i might be laughed upon, but..)

The thing is that FoC spike WAS overpowered, especially on that hall.

Mr Urthadar · Jun 23, 2006, 12:46 AM // 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by fb2000

I cant seem to understand why everyone is soooo negative toward spikes.. its just another build? if you think its "cheap" you should be able to score victory

if you lose from a spike, it doesnt mean spiking is cheap and should be nerfed. adapt

and I wouldnt use a pretty much unique build (im a noob, but i think it wasnt used before in this manner) as the spike on the finals as an argument, it clearly involves much coordination, and was nicely thought thru

just my opinion (realize i might be laughed upon, but..)

I'm not sooo negative about spike. I don't really care. But it's funny that spike builds in particular would be the builds most affected.

I just wonder what the unintended consequences of a SINGLE-SKILL-PER-PLAYER-SWAP would be. Everyone's response has been exactly what I didn't expect -- "you can beat spike with tactics".

I don't care about the debate on how to beat spike. It's been covered already by other posts.

My real question, perhaps hidden in my OP by obfuscated writing -- Would the `Chameleon' skill be something useful in GvG? If not, then why?

Someone remarked that it was `one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.' But he didn't care to elaborate. Hyperbole FTW

.

ju

SaintGreg · Jun 23, 2006, 02:53 AM // 02:53

The chameleon skill sounds like a good idea. It adds another element to the game, being able to counter your opponents build without knowing exactly what you will be playing. I think it might go a long way towards "fixing" the randomness of ladder play. You should call in on WoC and bring it up. Whether it needs fixing is a bit objective though, I don't really know personally.

Lando Griffen · Jun 23, 2006, 03:40 AM // 03:40

I certainly hope anet would be smarter than to allow that. If you're not prepared, then you don't deserve to win. If a gimmick build is so overpowered that it's very common to see, then you should be prepared to see it. If you do lose to one of these builds, it shouldn't be the end of the world for you, especially if, as you said, you're not interested in "top tier" gvg. You say your "gg" and move on to the next match.

Goonter · Jun 23, 2006, 04:21 AM // 04:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Urthadar

* Please, for the sake of argument, just assume that Gimmic Builds are a problem.

Quoting some key points I felt from the topic as is taken place at the guild-hall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rieselle

the underlying motive is: People dont like it when the outcome is predetermined by random chance, with nothing they can do about it after the fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goonter

Playing out a match for half and hour that you know you’ve lost (or you at least know your working way uphill to get a crumb) in the first six minutes is what inspires hatred over “gimmick” builds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goonter

One definition of gimmick (taken from the dictionary) as it applies to GW.
An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project.
That project being - winning a match.

Question: "What did you use to win your match?"
If you can call it out, you got your "gimmick".
If your strategy was to play "mitigation, anti-mitigation, and damage either in the form of pressure and spike that cannot be countered by a single skill or two." then your gimmick is what we are agreeing to understand a balanced build.

It's sad how the term gimmick is being misused due to emtional baggage.
This is the game how it is played for better or worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Urthadar

Thoughts?

This is me creating a new game, hopefully for the better as it address this issue of Imperfect Information and Selection Methods by creating a faster pace and more even play for matches.
http://www.guild-hall.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41606

Thom · Jun 23, 2006, 07:59 AM // 07:59

Having the ability to swap skills after the start of battle is going to make these problems worse not better. The ability to win will shift to build decisions away from proper play. Gimmick builds would find ways to manipulate their gimmick and make it more flexible to whatever counter you are attempting.

The problem with a reactive balance is that instead of controlling the match, they try to find skills to counter every possible scenerio. A good team will force you into playing reactively by dictating the how, when and where the battle will (or won't) take place. If you are letting the other team execute their strategy and you can't execute yours, you already know you've lost.

A team needs to know basically how they will respond to various types of attack. Spike shouldn't suprise anyone by now and neither should various forms of pressure. The Imperial Isle map was broken, but movement is now much easier. The game is wide open for skilled play. Most any gimmick can be beaten by a well formed well executed strategy that responds to the gimmicks weakness and dictates the match.

JR · Jun 23, 2006, 11:33 AM // 11:33

An idea Kestrel and I had:

Go to your Guild Hall, form up your party to enter a GvG. Hit enter.

...Awaiting Worthy Opponent...

10 minutes later:

Quote:

Match found with Rank Three Plus Pug [DEER]!
You have two minutes to review your skillbar.

2:00

"Oh crap, ok Warriors drop Penetrating Blow for "Shields Up!", Mesmers drop Energy Burn for Distortion, Monks drop Signet of Devotion for Distortion... That should do it!"

Simple. Discourage guilds from getting a name for running gimmick builds by giving people the ability to change up their skill bars a bit before a match. You would have to get around the fact that PvE characters with the ability to rune swap could effectively change their entire character build (from Dom to Illusion for example), which would give PvE characters a HUGE advantage over PvP characters. The idea it's self though is all it would take to make gimmicks less easy to farm ladder with, and VASTLY improve the state of ladder play.

[Edit because I needed to stress more about how much better ladder play would be:

At the moment when you go in you have to try and take into account every gimmick and FoTM build being ran. You can build against smite, but then get rolled by caster spike because you didn't have the skill bar space to counter it. You simply cannot take everything into account, and it just makes the ladder far too random.

Given a system whereby you could tailor your build for each match it would allow you to prepare for something like Rifts FC Air spike, or HK Necro spike for example. It would promote the use of balanced builds; and through that the importance of tactics and strategy of GvG play. Balanced build would benefit more, as they are far harder to build against and have more flexibility with exactly what they can swap in.

A more competitive ladder is a better ladder.]

around · Jun 23, 2006, 11:56 AM // 11:56

Why the hate over gimmicks? We ran a balanced build with 2 Migraine mesmers while we were ranked 1000 odd, we played a rank 800+ bspike team on Burning Isle (our home turf), and we won, because both our mesmers had Cry of Frustration and the cripshot had blackout

Cry of frustration owns spike teams. It's not particularly hard to counter spike teams (one skill will do it) and they tend to fold over if a few spikes in a row fail.

MrScaRy · Jun 23, 2006, 12:16 PM // 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

Why the hate over gimmicks? We ran a balanced build with 2 Migraine mesmers while we were ranked 1000 odd, we played a rank 800+ bspike team on Burning Isle (our home turf), and we won, because both our mesmers had Cry of Frustration and the cripshot had blackout

Cry of frustration owns spike teams. It's not particularly hard to counter spike teams (one skill will do it) and they tend to fold over if a few spikes in a row fail.

A ranked 800+ team may be a better rank than your guild, but it is short of anything with the word "competitive" in it.. Wouldn't be surprised to have beat that build with the necessary counters. However, it would be different if you did not have cry of frustration or blackout.. because you never know what build you may come up against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

Match found with Rank Three Plus Pug [DEER]!
You have two minutes to review your skillbar.

2:00

The idea of being able to change build right before the match is good, but obviously it does have its problems as PvE characters have a larger advantage as opposed to PvP characters. The pve characters have the option to rune/armor swap.. but pvp characters don't and even with this new system they won't be able to swap to another attribute line, limiting to only their current build. You also might not have the right professions to counter a build, because you may not have a mesmer for the necessary cry of frustration, just as an example.

However, I think that this suggestion would probably be the better one as of now.