Curse

*lemming* · Apr 18, 2008, 11:47 PM // 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magikarp

thank you, THANK YOU!!!

this is pretty much what i've been trying to say since i saw this fiasco, but im sure more will listen to you seeing as you're a lot more popular on gwg than i am lol....

the diversity of the skill pool is getting too shallow, and anet looks for the pvp'ers to make all their minds up for them. this leads the entire communities input to be one sided, making a lopsided economy, player base, and overall gameplay experience.

You completely missed the point of the post you quoted.

Gun Pierson · Apr 18, 2008, 11:47 PM // 23:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

The heart of the matter is that this situation has NOTHING to do with balance, and everything to do with appeasing the majority.

PvP and PvE use a lot of the same skills, so PvP balancing has an effect on the PvE majority, that's the link. A nerf always has a negative feeling coming with it. Even though the nerf itself may not be a big deal in PvE. I suspect the masses experience it as a negative wave after another negative wave etc. Building up a neverending pessimistic cycle which creates a bad relation between the PvP and PvE playerbase.

But yes I understand what you're saying. Annoying the majority on a regular basis though is not a good idea imo if you wanne sell a game (GW2) the coming years. I think that's the reason why they seem to change direction or test some stuff out. They are aware that they will need the PvE playerbase to bring in a lot of cash. But I can be wrong ofcourse, I'm just trying to understand.

Magikarp · Apr 19, 2008, 12:05 AM // 00:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehlemming

You completely missed the point of the post you quoted.

please explain. im not sure i understand how you think i wasnt comprehending what she said, and my agreeing with said subject...

Savio · Apr 19, 2008, 12:25 AM // 00:25

Carinae wasn't blaming PvPers. In fact he said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carinae Dragonblood

PvE NEEDS PVP SKILL BALANCES TO REMAIN HEALTHY.

Magikarp · Apr 19, 2008, 01:47 AM // 01:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savio

Carinae wasn't blaming PvPers. In fact he said this:

but how does that disassociate my agreeing and her statement? i said that the balance of pvp changes, that are needed , shouldnt outweigh the entire community as a whole. nor should pve vice versa. they should either be managed properly together, or be split... and tbh.. i rather not see that split..

Willow O Whisper · Apr 19, 2008, 02:00 AM // 02:00

I don't like the idea of racial bonuses.... I tried wow..... Ever heard Lf Gnome Warlock before? i hate that stuff.

Zinger314 · Apr 19, 2008, 02:15 AM // 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carinae Dragonblood

Anet is demonstrating classic meltdown. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've heard this from both high-end PvP and PVE players. There is an apparent MAJOR lack of management at Anet.

QFT. Guild Wars would be a dramatically better game if skill balances were rational.

la_cabra_de_vida · Apr 19, 2008, 02:38 AM // 02:38

Apparently pve'ers are now feeling the "nightfall" effect that gwen gave them.

Turtle222 · Apr 19, 2008, 02:48 AM // 02:48

whatever racial attributes anet gives, it must be minimal and not important in the end

Dr Strangelove · Apr 19, 2008, 03:06 AM // 03:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carinae Dragonblood

The problem, in my opinion, is that there is no respect for PvE on Anets part. I love skill updates, and 99% of them are fine, even if it seriously affects some builds, it often makes others viable. When one door closes, another opens. This is VERY healthy for PvE.

However, there are some changes...and even LACK of changes... that clearly demonstrates that Anet doesn't give a rats ass about PvE. THAT'S why PvE is in trouble. It gets no actual maintenence. Skill/mechanic changes are made exculsively for their effect on PvP, and there is not even secondary consideration for their effect on PvE. I'm NOT saying that PvP changes shouldn't take priority, they should, but some actual consideration should be given for the effect on PvE.

Admittedly, Anet has a difficult job in balancing both sides fairly, however, I don't think PvE even occurs to them in the slightest, practically ever. And yet, that is their job. It's a hard job, but it's the one they chose. No changes should ever be purely driven by exasperation on Anets part, and yet it's happened.

The planned reversion doesn't indicate that there is growing respect for PvE, it actually indicates exasperation on their part... again. PvE NEEDS PVP SKILL BALANCES TO REMAIN HEALTHY. But it needs them to make sense and to NOT unnessecarily break things in PvE along the way.

No skill changes in PvE kills PvE. It stagnates and dies.

Stupid skill/mechanic changes kills BOTH sides.

Anet is demonstrating classic meltdown. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. I've heard this from both high-end PvP and PVE players. There is an apparent MAJOR lack of management at Anet.

That bodes very badly for Guild Wars.

A very high quality post that everyone should read. It's worth noting that skill changes from PvP are essentially random skill changes in PvE - they affect skills that may not be overpowered at all. However, that's really ok. Balance in PvE is far more flexible, and gameplay is improved by random changes.

An ideal skill balance for PvP nerfs overpowered stuff, and buffs counters to it.

An ideal PvE update for non-farmers involves buffing unused skills and nerfing overused stuff.

PvP determining the PvE updates certainly wasn't perfect, but it's several orders of magnitude better than not updating at all.

norad · Apr 19, 2008, 04:47 AM // 04:47

reading all of this. wow. just wow. so bad.

manitoba1073 · Apr 19, 2008, 07:09 AM // 07:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

A very high quality post that everyone should read. It's worth noting that skill changes from PvP are essentially random skill changes in PvE - they affect skills that may not be overpowered at all. However, that's really ok. Balance in PvE is far more flexible, and gameplay is improved by random changes.

An ideal skill balance for PvP nerfs overpowered stuff, and buffs counters to it.

An ideal PvE update for non-farmers involves buffing unused skills and nerfing overused stuff.

PvP determining the PvE updates certainly wasn't perfect, but it's several orders of magnitude better than not updating at all.

But theres one major difference between the balances for PvP and the balances for PvE.

When its ballanced on the PvP side for overpowered thats in the range thats the same for both opposing sides. Which works great.

When its ballanced to the PvE side 90% or so its range is players vs higher lvl and higher stats. Doesnt work so great then.

Take the discussion on BHA. A vast majority wanted to half the duration on it. Why simple because they couldnt move or position themselfs from being ganked. Which is ok when its actual duration is more than long enough in PvP. Now take the same thing in PvE that now nerfed skill only lasts 5 secs on normal creatures and 2.5 secs on bosses. Sucks really badly now.

But thats a little OT for this discussion now back to the OP discussion.

Heres the problem and where it actually started once Anet made the PvP character creation it started the whole disassociation between PvP and PvE allowing one group to almost completely ignore the full effects of what would happen. To see that all you have to do is read the forums.

Could Anet have done things differently than nerfing skills and keep PvP interesting. Yes they very well could have and I mentioned them long ago, but the mentality of some just want the easy way out. Instead of actually finding a rational way of doing things they take a cop out way of doing it.

Dr Strangelove · Apr 19, 2008, 07:18 AM // 07:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

But theres one major difference between the balances for PvP and the balances for PvE.

When its ballanced on the PvP side for overpowered thats in the range thats the same for both opposing sides. Which works great.

When its ballanced to the PvE side 90% or so its range is players vs higher lvl and higher stats. Doesnt work so great then.

Except big numbers don't mean anything when you have the AI of moldy styrofoam.

manitoba1073 · Apr 19, 2008, 07:29 AM // 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove

Except big numbers don't mean anything when you have the AI of moldy styrofoam.

And yet moldy styrofoam about the same mentality as a lot of PvPers so whats your point. Theres a few exceptions here and there but thats about it. ANd if you think Im wrong on that I suggest you need to play more PvP.

Which points out where the differences of balance really are.

the_jos · Apr 19, 2008, 08:42 AM // 08:42

Quote:

Heres the problem and where it actually started once Anet made the PvP character creation it started the whole disassociation between PvP and PvE allowing one group to almost completely ignore the full effects of what would happen. To see that all you have to do is read the forums.

There has always been tension between PvE and PvP balances.
Most of the time it's about skills which are too powerfull in PvP so they need to be toned down. You won't many PvE players complain when a certain skill receives a buff for example.

Now if a skill is powerfull in PvP there is a fair chance it's also very powerfull in PvE.
But powerfull does not always mean it's usefull.
For example there are very few PvE monk builds with infuse in it.
That's because spike damage in PvE is rare and if present easily be countered with some other skills or running a damage soaking tank.
Or the spike is just too big to counter, I've seen an PUG ursan die in Nundu Bay HM with the blink of an eye by a spike of the ele boss group.

I fully understand that PvE players are upset when a certain skill or feature they use is nerfed to a point where they can't use a populair build anymore.
However, a lot of the builds that would be hit are either solo farming or very specific team builds. If a class becomes depending on one or two skills to be viable in any place in PvE we have an entirely different problem.
I think the closest class with that problem is the assassin who just does not match very well with increasing numbers of foes and higher levels.
And even the assassin is hindered more by the way people played the profession then the actual profession.
It's not a warrior and cannot soak damage as tank (unless running a specific build) so don't pretend to be one.
Also, it's not Bruce Lee who is still alive at the end of the movie after beating many enemies.
It's a class you use to pick out one specific target so the rest of the team can focus on something else.
But that needs team coordination and that's something rare in PvE.

It's understandable why team coordination and team building seems rare in PvE.
I've seen a lot of PUGs that required specific builds to be ran. And not only in the elite areas.
Not because those builds are good but because they worked in the past.
Why change a winning team?
A vast number of the PvE players lacks insight in the game mechanics.
They know what works but not why. So they can't adapt to changes.
I'd prefer A-net to make changes to make PvP fair even if it hurts PvE.
PvE has enough alternative builds or strategies.
Too bad they can't do this anymore because their players don't seem to understand that.

manitoba1073 · Apr 19, 2008, 09:16 AM // 09:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_jos

Not because those builds are good but because they worked in the past.
Why change a winning team?
A vast number of the PvE players lacks insight in the game mechanics.
They know what works but not why. So they can't adapt to changes.
I'd prefer A-net to make changes to make PvP fair even if it hurts PvE.
PvE has enough alternative builds or strategies.
Too bad they can't do this anymore because their players don't seem to understand that.

And yet those same things can be said in the PvP enviroment. Just look at the BHA example. Instead of adapting or coming up with alternative builds or strategies all they did is whine.(luckily it was never implemented.) Can be said for all FoTM builds. Instead of changing there strategues or trying alternative builds its far easier to whine and cry for a nerf, because its far easier to stay with what some believe is a winning formula.

Anet can make those changes to make PvP fair without hurting PvE, but a majority of the PvPers wont have it. They simple dont care about any collateral damage. As you even pointed out.

JR · Apr 19, 2008, 10:17 AM // 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

And yet those same things can be said in the PvP enviroment. Just look at the BHA example. Instead of adapting or coming up with alternative builds or strategies all they did is whine.(luckily it was never implemented.) Can be said for all FoTM builds. Instead of changing there strategues or trying alternative builds its far easier to whine and cry for a nerf, because its far easier to stay with what some believe is a winning formula.

Just because something can be countered doesn't mean it is balanced.

I wish I had a dollar for every time that has been said on a Guild Wars forum.

Gun Pierson · Apr 19, 2008, 10:25 AM // 10:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by manitoba1073

Anet can make those changes to make PvP fair without hurting PvE, but a majority of the PvPers wont have it. They simple dont care about any collateral damage. As you even pointed out.

I'm getting that impression too, which is quite sad to be honest. It only strenghthens my feeling Anet has to go through with this maybe new approach.

Kashrlyyk · Apr 19, 2008, 10:27 AM // 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Just because something can be countered doesn't mean it is balanced.

"Meditation of the Reaper" is counterable, but unbalanced. So when can we expect the skill balance????

JR · Apr 19, 2008, 10:33 AM // 10:33

Unbalanced in comparison to other PvE boss skills? Perhaps. I'd say the synergy between Impossible Odds and Battle Scars was really the issue to look at though...