Curse

*lemming* · Jan 14, 2012, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanier

This is a question for the PvP folks: Why is the buff to Stone Sheath a bad thing in pvp? With all of the powercreep to offensive skills, I would think that having a new defensive skill that can slow down spikes would be a good thing. Of course, I don't know about pvp, hence why I'm asking this question.

1. The correct response to power creep is to nerf, not to power creep more. Sure, people are happier with buffs, but you can't always take the easy way out.

2. Sure, Stone Sheath does wonders against spikes, but it hoses physicals in general far harder. When the dominant builds of the past three months have been ele-centric defensive spikes, I somehow doubt that adding more defensive spike templates is much of a good corrective measure.

Mouse at Large · Jan 14, 2012, 08:50 PM // 20:50

I'm still not completely understanding the Stone Sheath hate from a PvP perspective. It introduces a new dynamic and shakes up the meta - as did the mesmer and derv updates. Instead of QQ, why not try to adapt???

And in any case, leave it alone for PvE.

Martin Alvito · Jan 14, 2012, 08:58 PM // 20:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanier

This is a question for the PvP folks: Why is the buff to Stone Sheath a bad thing in pvp? With all of the powercreep to offensive skills, I would think that having a new defensive skill that can slow down spikes would be a good thing. Of course, I don't know about pvp, hence why I'm asking this question.

There are two ways to kill things in Guild Wars PvP:

1) Deal large quantities of simultaneous damage to target(s), zeroing out the health bar.
2) Disable the opposing midline and backline's ability to prevent and heal damage. This is generally done with some combination of disabling key skills and depleting casters' energy (directly or indirectly).

Stone Sheath makes it very, very difficult to do either. It's arguably even more effective than Aegis was at preventing melee damage over time, it significantly affects midline support characters' ability to inflict damage, and it even boasts both passive and active spike prevention capabilities.

I'll skip a full treatment of this point since it's a bit involved, but the intuition should be obvious: when it's generally hard to kill things, defensive builds predominate because an aggressive build template just isn't worth the associated risks. Unfortunately, if you take this to the extreme it becomes impossible to kill anything, yielding a dull meta with stalemated match after stalemated match.

To put it another way: for PvP to work, there has to be some mechanism permitting effective teams to distinguish themselves from ineffective teams. Create a skill that functionally blunts all damage by a sizable percentage, and it becomes much harder for that to happen. It's not a question of adaptation, it's a question of whether or not the game fulfills the objectives of being fun and rewarding quality play.

Essence Snow · Jan 15, 2012, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

There are two ways to kill things in Guild Wars PvP:

1) Deal large quantities of simultaneous damage to target(s), zeroing out the health bar.
2) Disable the opposing midline and backline's ability to prevent and heal damage. This is generally done with some combination of disabling key skills and depleting casters' energy (directly or indirectly).

Stone Sheath makes it very, very difficult to do either. It's arguably even more effective than Aegis was at preventing melee damage over time, it significantly affects midline support characters' ability to inflict damage, and it even boasts both passive and active spike prevention capabilities.

I'll skip a full treatment of this point since it's a bit involved, but the intuition should be obvious: when it's generally hard to kill things, defensive builds predominate because an aggressive build template just isn't worth the associated risks. Unfortunately, if you take this to the extreme it becomes impossible to kill anything, yielding a dull meta with stalemated match after stalemated match.

To put it another way: for PvP to work, there has to be some mechanism permitting effective teams to distinguish themselves from ineffective teams. Create a skill that functionally blunts all damage by a sizable percentage, and it becomes much harder for that to happen. It's not a question of adaptation, it's a question of whether or not the game fulfills the objectives of being fun and rewarding quality play.

So let me get this right...It takes out the ability of teams to faceroll other teams in formats where ability is not matched on an even basis or makes matches drawn out? Really? This is what all the hubub is about?

Martin Alvito · Jan 15, 2012, 01:57 AM // 01:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

So let me get this right...It takes out the ability of teams to faceroll other teams in formats where ability is not matched on an even basis or makes matches drawn out? Really? This is what all the hubub is about?

No, though that is one of the effects. That problem is reminiscent of the early days of Factions when bad teams could force the match to VoD simply by turtling with a Ritualist. It's boring, but it doesn't destroy the integrity of the game.

The severe problem is that it makes it impossible for closely matched teams to discriminate. To pressure a team out, you have to produce a great deal more damage or threats than the opponent with the same resources. Blunting damage output sufficiently makes this impossible, with the result being that matches which would get resolved by actual play instead get resolved by the tiebreaker.

Think about the problem this way: suppose we're playing speed chess. Suddenly we reduce the available clock to the point where it becomes a game of pure reflexes (where each player is desperately trying to make a legal move before the time runs out) rather than a game of strategy. But you're a chess player. You sat down to play chess. Are you happy about this change?

Well, that's what's happened here. People want to play Guild Wars, not game a flawed tiebreaker system every match.

Kunder · Jan 15, 2012, 02:11 AM // 02:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

Think about the problem this way: suppose we're playing speed chess. Suddenly we reduce the available clock to the point where it becomes a game of pure reflexes (where each player is desperately trying to make a legal move before the time runs out) rather than a game of strategy. But you're a chess player. You sat down to play chess. Are you happy about this change?

Nah, thats an overly offensive-based guild wars. The Defensive version of Chess would be each player given a Chess computer as an adviser on their move. The computer would always give the best possible move (bring Stone Sheath) which would, assuming both players played the best possible move, always end in the same result (stalemate with neither side doing anything). Then after 50 moves you call it a draw, but since Guild Wars doesn't have draws we just give the win effectively by a coin toss because screw the players.

To put it more succinctly: powerful damage mitigation should always be predictive, not proactive. The former requires a skill check on your part vs the enemy's skill at tricking you or diverting you. The latter is a constant defense. It just sits there, making your team a brick wall and the game dumb.

Martin Alvito · Jan 15, 2012, 02:14 AM // 02:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunder

Nah, thats an overly offensive-based guild wars. The Defensive version of Chess would be each player given a Chess computer as an adviser on their move. The computer would always give the best possible move (bring Stone Sheath) which would, assuming both players played the best possible move, always end in the same result (stalemate with neither side doing anything).

*nod* That's a more accurate analogy. All I was trying to illustrate was the problem of the game being changed to the point of being unrecognizable. In the scenario you posit, a series of games is actually determined by who is the best chess programmer, rather than the best chess player.

Essence Snow · Jan 15, 2012, 02:32 AM // 02:32

The thing is it's not the move...it's the piece....you already assume the other team will have it so you plan ahead. Your team can have it...thier team can have it..there is no distict advantage given to one team or the other. It's all about how they use it or fail to counter it...ie...use it or counter it skillfully....(which I thought is what pvp was about). It's not like your team doesnt have the exact same options as the other team and that your team is at some disadvantage b/c stone sheath's current state.

Kunder · Jan 15, 2012, 02:38 AM // 02:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

The thing is it's not the move...it's the piece....you already assume the other team will have it so you plan ahead. Your team can have it...thier team can have it..there is no distict advantage given to one team or the other. It's all about how they use it or fail to counter it...ie...use it or counter it skillfully....(which I thought is what pvp was about). It's not like your team doesnt have the exact same options as the other team and that your team is at some disadvantage b/c stone sheath's current state.

By that logic not a single thing Anet could do to PvP could be imbalanced as long as both sides were allowed to bring the same skills. Hopefully I don't have to elaborate on why that is a silly notion.

Balance isn't just about me vs you, its how interesting the dynamics of skill selection and skillful play work out. Forcing characters to bring Stone Sheath and counters to Stone Sheath eliminates 90% of the skill selection part, and the means by which Stone Sheath operates (taking no skill to cast on recharge on your backline) greatly diminishes the skill vs skill plays inside the match.

Essence Snow · Jan 15, 2012, 02:47 AM // 02:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kunder

By that logic not a single thing Anet could do to PvP could be imbalanced as long as both sides were allowed to bring the same skills. Hopefully I don't have to elaborate on why that is a silly notion.

Balance isn't just about me vs you, its how interesting the dynamics of skill selection and skillful play work out. Forcing characters to bring Stone Sheath and counters to Stone Sheath eliminates 90% of the skill selection part, and the means by which Stone Sheath operates (taking no skill to cast on recharge on your backline) greatly diminishes the skill vs skill plays inside the match.

Completely subjective. What may be interesting to you may not be interesting to another.

Stone Sheath is not alone in the list of skills that teams have to be prep'd for in pvp. It is simply the newest. While I agree it's OP (compared to some other skills, but who are we kidding...that goes for a myraid of skills) in PvP....I don't agree it's worth getting one's panties all in a bunch about.

Kunder · Jan 15, 2012, 02:54 AM // 02:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

Completely subjective. What may be interesting to you may not be interesting to another.

Stone Sheath is not alone in the list of skills that teams have to be prep'd for in pvp. It is simply the newest. While I agree it's OP (compared to some other skills, but who are we kidding...that goes for a myraid of skills) in PvP....I don't agree it's worth getting your panties all in a bunch about.

Highly non-subjective, considering 95% of experienced PvP players would agree that Stone Sheath is bad and leads to degenerative gameplay, and the other 5% agree but are trolling for the lulz.

Essence Snow · Jan 15, 2012, 02:59 AM // 02:59

Might want to look at the bolded part..that is what "subjective" was referring to. Not that SS is or may be OP.

Martin Alvito · Jan 15, 2012, 03:03 AM // 03:03

While it may be subjective, I'm not aware of any successful game of chance that involves placing a bet, then waiting 28 minutes for the results of a coin flip.

You do realize that democratic societies make governance choices entirely on the basis of the subjective judgments of its members, right? Showing that fun is subjective in no way invalidates the claim that we should change the game to make it more fun.

Essence Snow · Jan 15, 2012, 03:15 AM // 03:15

^^ much better arguement...to which I applaud

urania · Jan 15, 2012, 10:14 AM // 10:14

What you are forgetting is that balance is a lot about the relation between the level/amount of invested skill and the gain one receives from it.

stone sheat (read: shit) is a good example of an extremely lousy relation between the two.

Missing HB · Jan 15, 2012, 02:29 PM // 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Essence Snow

Completely subjective. What may be interesting to you may not be interesting to another.

Stone Sheath is not alone in the list of skills that teams have to be prep'd for in pvp. It is simply the newest. While I agree it's OP (compared to some other skills, but who are we kidding...that goes for a myraid of skills) in PvP....I don't agree it's worth getting one's panties all in a bunch about.

In GW nowadays though, it's only the diference between people playing for fun and people playing for the reward...

You used to get matches fast before, but today you need to prepare 3 hours to expect doing something in HA or GvG, and when you come back from work, it's not really passionating having to wait an hour to then face the same people playing 24/7 running the most boring build ever...(note : i'm talking about those guilds either syncing codex or playing HA permanently, not about people playing to win)

Fluffy Kittens · Jan 15, 2012, 02:42 PM // 14:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

stone sheat (read: shit) is a good example of an extremely lousy relation between the two.

I have to agree, 1 simple click makes you and another player in team basically invulnerable to physical hits. I hope that's not the way they wanted that skill to function.

cormac ap dunn · Jan 15, 2012, 04:48 PM // 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rezz Anna Nicole

I have to agree, 1 simple click makes you and another player in team basically invulnerable to physical hits. I hope that's not the way they wanted that skill to function.

I disagree, one click makes you and another teammate LESS vulnerable to physical hits. The majority of the complaints here seem to be of the " boohoo my assassin is less effective at face rolling through HA, change it no fair!" sort. People are whining because they might have to accept bringing a different secondary or GASP allow a different class to be brought? Really? PVX must not have a counter build under their meta tagged section yet. LOL

IrishX · Jan 15, 2012, 05:51 PM // 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by cormac ap dunn

I disagree, one click makes you and another teammate LESS vulnerable to physical hits. The majority of the complaints here seem to be of the " boohoo my assassin is less effective at face rolling through HA, change it no fair!" sort. People are whining because they might have to accept bringing a different secondary or GASP allow a different class to be brought? Really? PVX must not have a counter build under their meta tagged section yet. LOL

1. It does pretty much make melee useless. The AoE on Stone Sheath is absolutely retarded (It can very easily cover earshot range), and combined with the huge armor buff on top of everyone already stacking as much armor as possible, you just do not do damage. Also, 12s recharge.

2. Assassins are probably the least impacted by Stone Sheath, since dagger damage is already so low, and most of their damage comes from spamming attack skills.

3. The risk vs. reward ratio is way out of whack. For 5e and 1.75s, you force AT LEAST 10e and 2s on condi removal (assuming 2 frontline), and force target swaps. You can strip the ele, but it still has glowstone. You can also interrupt it, but at a 1s cast, you basically have to camp the ele, and due to it being a 5e cast, it can be faked indefinitely until it is FC'd.

4. Nobody likes playing elespike.

Chthon · Jan 15, 2012, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

While it may be subjective, I'm not aware of any successful game of chance that involves placing a bet, then waiting 28 minutes for the results of a coin flip.

Oh, something like this?