Curse

JR · Apr 23, 2009, 09:34 AM // 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by sindex

It became even less rewarding when I started to really become better at using the profession. Why is it that only less then 15% of the healing reasonability is on the rest of the team while the monk takes the other 85%? No one profession should ever have that high of a dependence level, then to the other classes that come by it. All the professions should be almost completely equal to each other; so it does not feel like work, but instead feels genuinely entertaining.

A classic argument from people with little understanding of the game.

Your offensive line killing things quickly is as important to the groups survival as you doing a good job with healing and prot, as is having a midline that disrupts and supports efficiently. People don't get that because it's far simpler to say 'look at those red bars going down' and blame the person supposed to be bumping them back up.

fb2000 · Apr 23, 2009, 09:42 AM // 09:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Make the game more rewarding on a goal based level, rather than just adding layers of grind. That goes for PvP and PvE.

I agree with most of your points (thought I wouldnt when I first saw the topic tbh

). The thing with goal based vs grind based is that ultimately, grind based requires no effort from the developer - you make an area (be it PvE or PvP), successful execution of this area grants the player some useless points for a title (erhhmm, /Rank

) and you just let them grind for years.
Goal based means that no matter how hard these tasks are, they will be fulfilled by people sooner or later (if at all doable, which they have to be..). Then the ways get posted on forums, and soon everyone completes the tasks.
Obviously, as a developer, you need to add content at that point, or else people will start losing interest.

Dont get me wrong, I'd love it to be like that, I always found the little updates around the times of Prophecies awsome and made the impression of a living world, evolving as the players play it - tombs got infested with corrupter monsters, Heroes ascent got moved as a result, Sorrows furnace got added, the small PvE nerfs/new monsters (Kephet?).. All this really added a nice feel to it. However I dont see it happening with Anets business model, they simply cannot afford to add stuff all the time to old chapters, can they?

And I agree yet again, Prophecies PvP was best - I believe it was the only times that players had to think about stuff, not just smash buttons. The way a simple skillbar was used meant a lot back in the days

Lonesamurai · Apr 23, 2009, 09:44 AM // 09:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

A classic argument from people with little understanding of the game.

Your offensive line killing things quickly is as important to the groups survival as you doing a good job with healing and prot, as is having a midline that disrupts and supports efficiently. People don't get that because it's far simpler to say 'look at those red bars going down' and blame the person supposed to be bumping them back up.

Exactly

Remember kids, only use the band aid if you cut yourselves...

the trick is NOT TO CUT YOURSELF!!!

Grj · Apr 23, 2009, 10:56 AM // 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

Mainly because the PvE community never wants anything nerfed. The PvE community as a whole is literally quite content to blow up the most difficult areas in the game with characters that are invincible. Of course a community of people who play the game for the challenge are going to look down on them. PvPers are better skill-wise, so thus they're arrogant. PvE'ers who can clear FoW in 20 seconds are going to be arrogant towards PvE'ers who still use Searing Flames for their heroes.

Huh? PvE'er's want stuff nerfed all the time to "balance" pve, they hide behind this "balance" notiion because the player base only starts to get very vocal when a build allows what people call "noobs" to farm "elite areas" or areas people deem they shouldn't.

Ursan, shadow form etc etc is all a big unbalance but the 55/invici monk back in the day and the many variations of it today is completely fine?

The same goes for PvP in some cases why bother trying to counter a build when its just easier to come cry on the fourms, even better if you have top pvp'ers rallying behind these skill changes also. It makes the person seem more knowledgeable, cool and in with the pvp crowd, also anyone who disagrees with you can be safe knowing that you're better then them and they're a pve scrub.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

PvPers do pug. They're often horrified at their terrible builds that the PvE'ers (who claim to have equal skill) come up with. For quite some time now, the PvE meta has come directly from the PvP, all up until Shadow Form's ridiculous buffs. Look at most build archetypes and you can see where PvP's influence has been there - Splinter Weapon, WoH hybrids, Imbagons, sabway...PvPers came up with the backgrounds for all of this.

I've pug' with PvP'ers also that have pinged builds that where completely terrible and guess what? They claim they have skill and know what they're doing because they pvp and think they're the s**t. Someone asks them to change the build and they start getting all angsty, claiming they're in such and such guild with x rank on the ladder then start spamming their HA emote, what im trying to say both sides of PvE/PvP are just as bad as each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

The notoriously thin skin PvE'ers have when it comes to criticism is one of the reasons PvPers don't care for them.

As much as the pvp community complains about they're being no new blood this statement completely alienates the people the pvp community wants to pvp

cataphract · Apr 23, 2009, 11:20 AM // 11:20

Not to mention Snow Bunny is off the mark again.

I haven't met many PvPers that could handle blatantly obvious truths and suggestions. Criticising a PvPer is masochism at its purest. There is a culture of narcissism that woven into the very fabric of every PvPer out there. They feed upon thrashing and bashing others just for the sake of their own over-inflated egos.

And when they come to PvE their narcissism level increases ten-fold. As well as their ego.

pumpkin pie · Apr 23, 2009, 11:26 AM // 11:26

Do what you say, say what you do, don't hide anything, internal communication must be good so everyone give the same responses to your players/customers instead of one person saying A another person saying B, otherwise its best not to say anything until you have all the details ready :P~

I agree the person who balance the skills need to play the pvp of the game, but he/she must not belong to a guild actively involve in any competition, conflict of interest :P

Fril Estelin · Apr 23, 2009, 12:26 PM // 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by cataphract

I haven't met many PvPers that could handle blatantly obvious truths and suggestions. Criticising a PvPer is masochism at its purest. There is a culture of narcissism that woven into the very fabric of every PvPer out there. They feed upon thrashing and bashing others just for the sake of their own over-inflated egos.

And when they come to PvE their narcissism level increases ten-fold. As well as their ego.

I quite agree with that, but it must be said that PvP has also some of the most generous, kind and friendly people of the whole community. I think it's a complete shame that there aren't more, in particular on fansites (Guru, as QQ, suffers from a phenomenon of total misrepresentation of this side of the community). Sorry for the slight derail JR, but this also allows me to say thanks for the thread and say you're part of the nice PvP guys.

I'll throw a suggestion in this thread: PvP needs more role models. Seeing the GWFC got me really excited about PvP a while ago, recently there was this thread with a warm reception. Although you can't correct Anet's big mistakes, you can make a significant difference.

JR · Apr 23, 2009, 12:47 PM // 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

(Guru, as QQ, suffers from a phenomenon of total misrepresentation of this side of the community).

Definately. I think misrepresentation/stereotyping is a problem all around.

There are PvE players out there with a fantastic understanding of the game. Take Racthoh for one example of someone who (as far as I know) has never gotten into PvP, he has always impressed me with his insight and knowledge of the game.

Then there's the ridiculous notion that 'PvP players' have some innate sense of how a game should be balanced. For every one PvP player who can reason out and put forth a good argument for game balance you have twenty unpleasant idiots who give the rest a bad name and sink interesting feedback threads with trolling and ego.

I'll tell you one thing. When I think of the people who have consistently been at the top of their game in discussing the finer points of balance and game mechanics, I don't think many of them would categorize themselves as 'PvP players' or 'PvE players'.

Aldric · Apr 23, 2009, 12:52 PM // 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

PvP Balance Feedback
There should be much better avenues for balance feedback, for which I could make many suggestions but I will leave it at that for now. Balance updates should be much more frequent, and with much more of a delicate touch. Small regular tweaks, rather than bi-monthly dartboard sessions. The skill balancer should play the game competitively.

As a PvE'er I do understand the need for a delicate regular 'hands on' approach coupled with actual PvP player feedback to make micro updates so that the entire PvP side is kept fresh and enjoyable.This is one of the most important things needed for the GW2 PvP format.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

PvP and PvE Skill Split
I always saw this as a temporary band-aid fix for balance in Guild Wars. A way to appease the masses and move on. I now think more and more that it is an inevitable inclusion for Guild Wars 2. What other way is there to avoid the issue of stepping on each others toes? Even the plethora of PvE only skills doesn't solve the problem.

I didn't like the split and introduction of PvE only skills but given how I have seen skills have vastly different effect between PvE and PvP i think its pretty inevitable that there will be a split for GW2. Also less skills overall would help keep the balance i think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Visual Recognition
Solution: See previous suggestions for balance. Attach gold capes to the accounts, not the guild. Visual recognition on a player level rather than a guild level would have much more meaning. All members of a winning guild who played in one or more mAT rounds should get a gold cape associated with their account. It should be non-transferable.

I like this idea. I never liked that players can buy into a guild and get a trim. These are earned for outstanding performance in a tournament and as such should be tied to the person who has actually played well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Balance Mobs
This has been better since Nightfall, but still not perfect. Mobs should generally have a better mix of classes. A couple of Monks, Warriors, maybe a Mesmer and an Ele or two... It would remove the stupidity of getting teamspiked by a group of 8 level 25 Elementalist monsters, and would give PvE players who hope to move into PvP some better preparation. It would also make gimmick builds in PvE less powerful, requiring people to think more about approach and roles.
Solution: Mix up classes more in mobs. Stop people steamrolling through advanced areas with simple gimmick builds. Put more emphasis on skill and playing as a team in PvE.

Hard Mode was a stupid design for me. Basically it added some extra monsters and raised their levels a bit rather than making it more challenging.

Mobs in PvE should be more PvP like with a better mix and better skillbars. Each monster group should have a random class makeup and within that group each class should have a list of potential builds and secondaries that it can spawn with.

Better monster AI with more random monster Party Mix coupled with variable Skill Bar possibilities would lead to more balanced well designed challenge for players than our current HM implementation i think.

Expansion Classes
I agree with alot of what you have said but would favour having less classes overall. I don't see the actual need for Paragons/Dervishes/Assassins and Ritualists and would instead merge them into the existing 6 core classes rather than reworking them in such a way as to make them more viable. I'm thinking more along the lines of a more D2ish type setup. Bows/Spear/Pets as the 'standard' weapons for Rangers , Swords/Axe/Hammer/Dagger/Scythe for Warrior's , Rit Spirits move to Necro , Channeling/Resto to Monks etc (havent completely though that out and how it would affect the class designs , just threw those out to give an rough idea of what i would consider)

Targren · Apr 23, 2009, 12:59 PM // 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by cataphract

Not to mention Snow Bunny is off the mark again.

I haven't met many PvPers that could handle blatantly obvious truths and suggestions. Criticising a PvPer is masochism at its purest. There is a culture of narcissism that woven into the very fabric of every PvPer out there. They feed upon thrashing and bashing others just for the sake of their own over-inflated egos.

Well put. Every time I get interested in trying PvP, all it takes is a few minutes in the match staging area to realize "Hey, nevermind. I'm content with the size of my man-bits"

JR · Apr 23, 2009, 01:07 PM // 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldric

Expansion Classes
I agree with alot of what you have said but would favour having less classes overall. I don't see the actual need for Paragons/Dervishes/Assassins and Ritualists and would instead merge them into the existing 6 core classes rather than reworking them in such a way as to make them more viable. I'm thinking more along the lines of a more D2ish type setup. Bows/Spear/Pets as the 'standard' weapons for Rangers , Swords/Axe/Hammer/Dagger/Scythe for Warrior's , Rit Spirits move to Necro , Channeling/Resto to Monks etc (havent completely though that out and how it would affect the class designs , just threw those out to give an rough idea of what i would consider)

I wasn't really arguing that those classes should be reworked, we all know it's long past that ever happening. I was just pointing out that their late addition to the game meant that they were trying to squeeze into roles already filled by the core classes.

That said, I do like your solution of merging them into the core classes. Were ArenaNet were ever to come to the conclusion that the expansion classes were a mistake that needed solving, that would be a very interesting one to discuss.

Red Sonya · Apr 23, 2009, 01:27 PM // 13:27

I don't think any one group is going to agree with another group or an individuals idea of "BALANCE" in this game. I never believed balance could be achieved in the first place after I saw all the skills and then the added characters and all their skills thrown into the bowl. I believe it is impossible to balance a game like this. Now CHANGING things for the sake of CHANGE now that I can believe in. But, there will never be any balance to this game past, present or future. Therefore while the OP ideas are valid enough for ideas they are no way all inclusive of a balanced form of play and never will be. The only thing we can rely on is CHANGE once a month, once every 3 months whatever, but, that is all.

JR · Apr 23, 2009, 02:00 PM // 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

I don't think any one group is going to agree with another group or an individuals idea of "BALANCE" in this game. I never believed balance could be achieved in the first place after I saw all the skills and then the added characters and all their skills thrown into the bowl. I believe it is impossible to balance a game like this. Now CHANGING things for the sake of CHANGE now that I can believe in. But, there will never be any balance to this game past, present or future. Therefore while the OP ideas are valid enough for ideas they are no way all inclusive of a balanced form of play and never will be. The only thing we can rely on is CHANGE once a month, once every 3 months whatever, but, that is all.

Balance is not a black and white issue. A game is never simply balanced or unbalanced, but always in a fluctuating state of balance. Updates are not there to try and reach perfection, but to keep the game fun and interesting.

Lonesamurai · Apr 23, 2009, 04:39 PM // 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Balance is not a black and white issue. A game is never simply balanced or unbalanced, but always in a fluctuating state of balance. Updates are not there to try and reach perfection, but to keep the game fun and interesting.

JR, you need to remember too that a lot of the guys here haven't worked in a Dev team doing what we're talking about and don't have the same understanding you have

However, maybe you could explain a little more about it on the show tonight, as that would be easier than a long drawn out essay on skill balancing

Yichi · Apr 23, 2009, 05:14 PM // 17:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grj

The same goes for PvP in some cases why bother trying to counter a build when its just easier to come cry on the fourms, even better if you have top pvp'ers rallying behind these skill changes also. It makes the person seem more knowledgeable, cool and in with the pvp crowd, also anyone who disagrees with you can be safe knowing that you're better then them and they're a pve scrub.

Please do not take this the wrong way, but judging by your response to this I am going to take it that you play Primarily PvE, due to this being a typical PvE only type of response.

While in theory this may sound well and good and simple enough, the fact is that PvP builds are never static and rarely repeat themselves. You cannot go in to a match and know exactically skill for skill what another team is possibly running, thus lies the problem with this thought. In a PvE setting, you have the luxury of the environment never changing. The mobs don;t change, the skillset dont change, the way they attack or use skills doesnt change, they will not try to outthink you, they will not try to outmanuver you, they will not try to build against you. Hence the term of PvE being a "Static" playingfield. PvP on the otherhand is almost never the same. While yes there are not nearly the number of viable builds being ran as in earlier times, there are still variants that you will not fully be able to predict until the match starts. Map choice, build choice, player strategy, server ping (this should die in a fire btw), skill selection, equipment selection can all play a huge role in determining the outcome of a game. You cannot go into a PvP match expecting to face the same thing match after match after match as each match, even if it is something as simple as map choice with the same build from 2 different teams, will inherently play different, thus PvP being a more "Dynamic" playingfield.

But this has been discussed in great length and detail prior to this and this argument should not even be taking place here.

pumpkin pie · Apr 23, 2009, 05:31 PM // 17:31

if PvP playing field is never the same, why then does it need skill balancing?

sorry and nerf this and that all the time?

Verene · Apr 23, 2009, 05:36 PM // 17:36

Quote:

Expansion Classes
I agree with alot of what you have said but would favour having less classes overall. I don't see the actual need for Paragons/Dervishes/Assassins and Ritualists and would instead merge them into the existing 6 core classes rather than reworking them in such a way as to make them more viable.

God, no. I have to say that I absolutely hate that idea. If Dervish were folded into Warrior, or Ritualist folded into Necro, then I'd be left with only one class I really enjoy playing (as I can't stand warriors or necros. Boring AND ugly professions).

Also, re: PvE/PvP split...I mostly play PvE. The few times I've tried PvP, I've found myself put off very quickly by the attitudes of people. PvP is just as gimmicky as PvE. How often do we see people complaining about the current meta and people running crap meta gimmick builds? Yes, I find idiots among the PvE crowd all the time (obviously playing a Dervish in Prophecies means I want to be in everyone's party or something and they don't like taking no for an answer), but for the most part my experience with the PvE community has been a lot better than with the PvP community.

Also, people always complain about balance. Balance is extremely difficult to achieve and most games are never fully balanced. A change to one skill has knock-on effects on pretty much everything else. It'll change the way NPC and monster AI works. It'll chance the way other skills that synergize with it end up working. And so on.

Yichi · Apr 23, 2009, 05:42 PM // 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

if PvP playing field is never the same, why then does it need skill balancing?

sorry and nerf this and that all the time?

PvP needs balancing to keep from giving one build a clear advantage over another, thus prohibiting the previous from being ran.

Any team build (not like a farming team build, but a true PvP orientated team build) on any given map should always have its strengths and weaknesses. The idea of "Balancing" PvP is to try to get each build on a level playing field for each map. The different build types will be better at certain aspects such as split or 8v8 play, but will have a slight disadvantage against builds set up for one thing, ie. spike builds. The goal is to have most builds viable and the outcome of the game not be determined by a simple game of chance in that you happen to get the right map against the right build, but rather have the outcome be determined by team play and player knowledge/skill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verene

Also, re: PvE/PvP split...I mostly play PvE. The few times I've tried PvP, I've found myself put off very quickly by the attitudes of people. PvP is just as gimmicky as PvE. How often do we see people complaining about the current meta and people running crap meta gimmick builds? Yes, I find idiots among the PvE crowd all the time (obviously playing a Dervish in Prophecies means I want to be in everyone's party or something and they don't like taking no for an answer), but for the most part my experience with the PvE community has been a lot better than with the PvP community.

The attitudes of some players wil lalways have a put off effect for some, but this cannot be the sole judgement of PvP players as a whole due to the size of the community you were exposed too. I can guarentee that the PvP community is far smaller that the PvP community, so inevitably your encounters with the bad players will show up as more drastic and make the community as a whole seem more arrogant as there isn't the diversity and expanse of players that the PvE community has. I would be willing to bet that if you were exposed to the same amount of PvE Players as PvP players in a given area, you would find just as many ignorant or bad attitude players as that were on the PvP side.

As the old saying goes, size matters...

pumpkin pie · Apr 23, 2009, 05:48 PM // 17:48

if you do that, then the pvp playing field will always be static. meaning, without the "chance" factor, the game will become static, you will encounter players with the "same because they are now all usable in all map an all situation" build all the time.

if the team play and its players are knowledgeable and skillful, they do not need to be afraid of that off chance of getting a "current most used spiking or what ever gimmick" build in pvp and they still will triumph over these build. no?

Yichi · Apr 23, 2009, 05:56 PM // 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

if you do that, then the pvp playing field will always be static. meaning, without the "chance" factor, the game will become static, you will encounter players with the "same because they are now all usable in all map an all situation" build all the time.

if the team play and its players are knowledgeable and skillful, they do not need to be afraid of that off chance of getting a "current most used spiking or what ever gimmick" build in pvp and they still will triumph over these build. no?

Yes and no. I never said to make the builds all identical. In certain maps and situations, even under the most balanced equasions, there will always be one side that will have a slight advantage build wise. This is made up for in game strategy and player/team skill. The game would end up being less static and more dynamic because that the "chance" will still be there, yet now you have brought back the evolution of the match in its playstyle. Each team will constantly be having to adapt to each other in both build, map, and playstyle, instead of it currently being more lopsided towards build.

Most of your PvP players with enough playtime actually don't worry about whatever gimmick or fotm is being ran, because they have enough exposure towards it and know how to play against it, or wether to even bother with it because they know that no matter what they do, they will not defeat that build on that map. Therein lies the problem. A game should not be determined by a diceroll because one build on one map is more blatantly overpowered than another.