Curse

t3dw4rd0 · Apr 23, 2009, 09:44 PM // 21:44

I have to disagree with the chance portion of it; there should be some element of it present. Just enough to still give the losing team somewhat of a chance IF they can use it correctly. 100% skill would just end up favoring one team the whole time. Chance gives the opportunity to mix things up, but not enough to completely turn the tables without proper use.

Still Number One · Apr 23, 2009, 09:54 PM // 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3dw4rd0

I have to disagree with the chance portion of it; there should be some element of it present. Just enough to still give the losing team somewhat of a chance IF they can use it correctly. 100% skill would just end up favoring one team the whole time. Chance gives the opportunity to mix things up, but not enough to completely turn the tables without proper use.

Kaon didn't specifically say 100%. In fact he mentioned how he liked distortions 75% chance. Although he did imply blind should be 100% which i dont know whether to agree with or not, because I like the idea but even flailing your arms around aimlessly is bound to hit something if it stands close enough.

I believe his main quirk was with fast casting sets which are dumb and really do need to be taken out of the game. There is no proper use of half casts, you either get them or you don't. Whether you get a kill or not shouldn't have anything to do with whether you got off a half cast or not, it should be about whether you timed the right skill or skills at the correct time.

Kaon · Apr 23, 2009, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Whenever I hit through a stance or blind I feel fantastic. Whenever I get hit through my lightning reflexes I feel terrible. Two months ago we lost our bronze cape in a monthly tournament because a ranger hit his interrupts and burning arrows through LR 5 times in a row.

It's a tradeoff. Yes. But a good one. Also chances don't have to be completely removed, just try to keep their influence on the game as low as possible.

Martin Firestorm · Apr 23, 2009, 10:07 PM // 22:07

Its tough reading your posts with that avatar staring at me.

[DE] · Apr 23, 2009, 10:14 PM // 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longasc

And you really suppose there are middle men between Izzy and his changes, and they turn gold into dust? He said himself he is the team lead on his Wiki page, so who is the unknown guy who rejects half of his suggestions?

There are middle men. Being the leader of a team doesn't mean the team does everything you want them to do. Likewise, working alone doesn't mean there aren't people who are required to check your work.

But for all we know, they're turning purple dust into green dust.

Longasc · Apr 23, 2009, 10:47 PM // 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

There are middle men. Being the leader of a team doesn't mean the team does everything you want them to do. Likewise, working alone doesn't mean there aren't people who are required to check your work.

It sounds logical, but it is also an awful lot of speculation, this "unknown guy" or "middle man". You put part of the blame on this unknown entity. But in the end it is the team leader who decides and is responsible for the team and its success. And this is exactly Izzy's position. Not longer for GW1, he is working on GW2 right now. I wonder what balances the new team will present us tomorrow.

I know you want to point out that he is responsible to some kind of "big boss" in the end, but I just do not see Mike O'Brien, Patrick Wyatt, Jeff Strain as executive producers or the other designers mentioned in the credits as responsible for his balancing successes or failures.

If this Mr. X exists and is responsible for Izzy's not so impressive track record, Halleluja... we can only hope he disappears before GW2 goes live...^^

JR · Apr 24, 2009, 09:09 AM // 09:09

Balance is not just one mans job, and never has been. Izzy is part of a team of designers, and whilst he is ultimately responsible for implementation he is not the only influence on it, nor the only one making suggestions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t3dw4rd0

I have to disagree with the chance portion of it; there should be some element of it present. Just enough to still give the losing team somewhat of a chance IF they can use it correctly. 100% skill would just end up favoring one team the whole time. Chance gives the opportunity to mix things up, but not enough to completely turn the tables without proper use.

I don't really think any of the elements of chance we are taking about are ever going to benefit anyone that isn't already in a very evenly fought match. At that point it just becomes annoying, to lose because of a percentage.

Think of the Catapult maps for example. Many times I have seen someone split all over the place on Warriors against some gimmick, managing to get to VoD with a decent number of their NPCs still up, not too much DP, and with their catapult repaired. As VoD hits they run to hit the lever and nuke all of their opponents NPCs, reversing the tide of the game and sealing a victory. But the catapult has other ideas. It decides it's going to hit far left of the courtyard, missing NPC route by a good football pitch or two. The gimmick build keeps their NPCs, marches in and blows everyone up. The end.

It works both ways. Elements of chance don't make the game easier or more fun for any particular party.

Red Sonya · Apr 25, 2009, 10:41 AM // 10:41

The only true balanced PVP in this game are like the Snowball fights and the Dragon Wars because everybodys bar is practically the same with only a handful of gimmick skills for the fun of it I suppose like yellow snow an avalanche. Be that as it may those are still the most balanced PVP matches in the entire PVP world. That's what we need more of in the regular day to day pvp world.

Grj · Apr 25, 2009, 12:01 PM // 12:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Balance is not just one mans job, and never has been. Izzy is part of a team of designers, and whilst he is ultimately responsible for implementation he is not the only influence on it, nor the only one making suggestions.

Thats sounds like an excuse to me, more the point it actually makes it worse this team of people have been pushing dire skill updates for ages now.

It seems like they have no real grasp or clue what happening inside the game they payed to balance, pvp'ers scream at pve'ers to stay out of balance discussions because they dont have a clue yet alot of pve'er's have put forward more constructive skill balances then the balance team have implemented in balance updates.

If i ever see and game with an competeive side to it and izzy or one of these other people have got anything to do with it, i know to stay the hell away from it.

Now that Anet are bringing in abit more money can the player base expect more better skill balancing?

JR · Apr 26, 2009, 11:15 AM // 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grj

Thats sounds like an excuse to me, more the point it actually makes it worse this team of people have been pushing dire skill updates for ages now.

It seems like they have no real grasp or clue what happening inside the game they payed to balance, pvp'ers scream at pve'ers to stay out of balance discussions because they dont have a clue yet alot of pve'er's have put forward more constructive skill balances then the balance team have implemented in balance updates.

If i ever see and game with an competeive side to it and izzy or one of these other people have got anything to do with it, i know to stay the hell away from it.

Now that Anet are bringing in abit more money can the player base expect more better skill balancing?

My biggest beef has never been with Izzy on this one.

In every other PvP game I can think of there is a member of the community team who's job is to aggregate and summarize balance feedback for the design team. They can do this more effectively than a designer because they know the community. They know the trolls, the people who play 24/7, the people who are prone to stupidity... etc.

Guild Wars has never had this (thanks to a terrible precedent set by Gaile Gray of ignoring PvP feedback and making Izzy do it himsefl), and one of my biggest worries is how seriously they take it. As important as it is to have a skill balancer who understands and plays competitive PvP, they also need a community team member who 'gets it' and takes part.

This is even more urgent when you consider the effort they are putting in to make Guild Wars 2 even more of a successful PvP game. If they actually have learned from their mistakes, and GW2 is as awesome as it could be, I think they might be surprised by a PvP community developing that was far bigger than they planned for.

I just hope it doesn't leave them floundering and unable to fully support it, like the release of Guild Wars.

DreamWind · Apr 26, 2009, 11:54 AM // 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

This is even more urgent when you consider the effort they are putting in to make Guild Wars 2 even more of a successful PvP game. If they actually have learned from their mistakes, and GW2 is as awesome as it could be, I think they might be surprised by a PvP community developing that was far bigger than they planned for.

I'm not convinced they have learned from their mistakes and I'm not convinced the PvP community will be very big. But perhaps you are more optimistic than I am in this company.

DarkNecrid · Apr 26, 2009, 01:26 PM // 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

I'm not convinced they have learned from their mistakes and I'm not convinced the PvP community will be very big. But perhaps you are more optimistic than I am in this company.

UAX at the start, fewer skills with the skills serving clear purposes, Izzy's already said adding tons of new professions was a mistake, less game modes to not spread out the community so much, etc. It sounds like they have to me based on what we already know.

Good thread JR.

pumpkin pie · Apr 26, 2009, 01:31 PM // 13:31

fewer skills will be a mistakes. IMHO, because this is what guild wars is base on in the first place, lots of skills. that aside.

lessons learnt: NO MICROTRANSACTION PLEASE, THANK YOU.

Wish Swiftdeath · Apr 26, 2009, 01:36 PM // 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by pumpkin pie

fewer skills will be a mistakes. IMHO, because this is what guild wars is base on in the first place, lots of skills. that aside.

lessons learnt: NO MICROTRANSACTION PLEASE, THANK YOU.

We're not talking about having 50 skills in the whole game. We are talking about not having THOUSANDS. Imagine trying to balance skills knowing that there is a good chance that your change will affects hundreds of skills possibly causing overpowered combinations.

Having less skills will be easier.

pumpkin pie · Apr 26, 2009, 01:40 PM // 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wish Swiftdeath

Having less skills will be easier.

yeap, like WOW, Requiem, and every other mmorpg out there

Killed u man · Apr 26, 2009, 01:41 PM // 13:41

Lession one:

AFTER initially launching your "Warrior" class, which EVERY game has, DON'T introduce:

"The Warrior With Daggers"
"The Warrior with Mending"
"The Warrior with Aegis"

classes. They merely screw up your "triangle" of succes...

Also, hire some more people to balance the skills. Guild Wars is BASED ON the 8 skills every party member has on it's bar, hence it can be said Skill Balance is the most important aspect of the game. (PvP-wise)

DreamWind · Apr 26, 2009, 02:02 PM // 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

UAX at the start

Are you sure about that? How do you know its not like half UAX (or just the skills) and you have to purchase the weapons/armors etc? We don't know this, especially considering Anet's recently found source of income that is microtransactions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

fewer skills with the skills serving clear purposes

That Izzy designed? Pardon me if I'm not convinced. Not to mention fewer skills is a bad thing to many people. But even if it is a good thing, what happens when new skills are introduced? (Which is inevitable).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

Izzy's already said adding tons of new professions was a mistake

And he has no power to change it. He will also have no power to change it in 2. Quite honestly why should we believe anything Izzy says? He has expressed a lot of things that did not happen in the game. It is either he means well and can't do what he wants because of higher ups, or he means bad and puts it into the game. It can't be neither, and it won't be neither in 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

less game modes to not spread out the community so much

Because more of the game modes will be for PvE. Perhaps GW2 will have a thriving new PvP community, but counting on the current community will do nothing as it is dwindling due to so many people quiitting because of Anet.

Its fine there is some optimism, but I am just not convinced. I simply go by the evidence on what Anet has done (and is still doing) in GW1. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If you want a recent example, look at the sorely needed skill update and what was put as priority over it. I suppose I am the eternal pessimist.

moriz · Apr 26, 2009, 02:18 PM // 14:18

it's already been confirmed that GW2 will have less skills. to make up for that, skills will become more "situational", as in, a skill might behave differently if you are standing or jumping/crouching/fallingdown etc.

zwei2stein · Apr 26, 2009, 02:28 PM // 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

it's already been confirmed that GW2 will have less skills. to make up for that, skills will become more "situational", as in, a skill might behave differently if you are standing or jumping/crouching/fallingdown etc.

Which is pretty dangerous as it means unprecedented amount of bar compression.

FoxBat · Apr 26, 2009, 02:33 PM // 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Which is pretty dangerous as it means unprecedented amount of bar compression.

I expect the fundamentals of GW2 to be so different that this kind of comparison is meaningless. There will be completely new mechanics to work with that will be built around.

Currently stuff like [distracting shot] dominates because it's so damn versatile at shutting everything down. GW2 would benefit from having similarly versatile counters that aren't so ping dependent.