Curse

JR · Apr 18, 2008, 10:48 AM // 10:48

(Mods: Move this to Sardelac if you must, but I am looking for answers and feedback more interesting than /signed or /notsigned.)

Skill balance updates and how they effect PvP and PvE; possibly one of the oldest and heavily debated topics on this forum and others. The problem stems from the different reasons behind the two sides to Guild Wars, which I will go into later.

Either side will always benefit from a balanced game, because it introduces diversity and gives players more choice. PvP takes this a step further in requiring near perfect balance to create a competitive environment. The problem is, as highlighted by the recent update, when a PvP oriented skill balance steps on the toes of PvE players.

The crux of the matter is this: Broken stuff in PvE is fun. Mowing through mobs on a D-Slash bar with Splinter Weapon being chained on you. Using Seed of Life to keep up your front line when dealing with a big agro... You get the picture. PvE is about playing out a story, feeling powerful, developing your character. It isn't hard to understand why seemingly unnecessary balance updates aimed at PvP can sting. Nobody likes the man interfering with their enjoyment.

With the introduction of Nightfall ArenaNet recognised the disparity between the two, dealing with it through introducing PvE only skills. Suddenly PvE players could have their cake and eat it, without it crossing the border and breaking PvP. I believe up untill then ArenaNet were against further separating the two sides of the game by doing this. However, the friction being created between the two sides of the community was already pushing them apart, a large part of that caused by this very issue.

The arguement heard over and over again (I used it myself a few times) was that skill balance simply didn't matter in PvE. It would always be easy, mobs would always be stupid, and wtf everyone uses Ursan anyway nub. From the perspective of a PvP player that is understandable, but the updates were still infringing on the core reason people play PvE; fun, as opposed to winning.

I think the recent update was a step backwards in ArenaNet's approach. They realized they had to have some kind of compromise, but dealt with it in a way that simply ends up displeasing both crowds. The PvE players still have to deal with the changes, and the PvP players face knowing that they will be reverted. I was quite pleased with the actual changes, some of them have been a long time coming, but the planned reversion just makes no sense.

Does PvP stop being a concern for ArenaNet after the last mAT? Is this a sign of things to come? Should we expect any more balance updates? Should Guild Wars 2 PvE players expect frequent updates and reversions that make little sense to them and just make their gaming less fun? All round it's quite worrying.

This brings me to the point of this thread, which is how this is to be dealt with in the future of Guild Wars and in Guild Wars 2.

The only way I can see this being dealt with in Guild Wars is simply to shift problem skills to being PvE only.

Take Splinter Weapon as an example. Knowing that this particular skill is a favorite amongst PvE players, I would have been very sketchy about hitting it with a significant nerf. On the flip side it has been causing problems in PvP for a while now, so something had to be done.

Instead of nerfing it for two weeks over the mAT and then restoring it to its previous broken state, I would simply have made it a PvE only skill and even considered buffing it just for funsies.

Obviously this isn't a viable solution in every case, but that really isn't a concern in this matter. The few significant cases where a skill sees a lot of use in PvE and is breaking PvP are where it really causes the friction and annoyance.

The important thing to consider here is how far down the road Guild Wars is. I wouldn't have considered suggesting this approach a year or two ago where over time it could have caused problems (PvE skill pool vast and overcomplicated, PvP skill pool diminished), but frankly I think the quick and dirty methods of solving problems are the best way forward right now.

You keep the PvE players happy by not interfering with their experience, and you keep the PvP players happy by completely removing the problem.

As for Guild Wars 2, there are a number of ways I can see this issue being dealt with, but a lot seem overcomplicated. For example. having two versions of each skill would just bloat the game and seem like a very shoddy work-around.

The solution that currently appeals to me most revolves around the five new playable races.

It has been stated that Guild Wars 2 will have race based skills, such as the Norn ability to shape shift into a bear. I would suggest that each class was given a racial trait attribute line (simmilar to a class' primary attribute line) that was only available for PvE and world PvP. Skills in that line or effects from having attribute points in that line would be frozen out in the arena PvP matches.

The game would then be designed from the ground up with the powerful and key PvE skills in the racial traits lines. This includes solo farming skills, big AoE damage attack skills, and so on. They would remain relatively untouched, with very little reason for them to ever be rebalanced. They would essentially perform all of the key functions of the game more effectively than any core (non racial) skill.

I'm interested in hearing any differing opinions on the problem its self, feedback on the proposed solutions, or alternative solutions entirely.

zwei2stein · Apr 18, 2008, 10:56 AM // 10:56

I think that you gravely underestimate need for balance in PvE.

IMBA stuff is fun, true, but that fun is short lived. You can only dslash mobs while chaining SY with said splinter and seed on you for so long.

After while, you need change, or you burn out. Now, most players don't want to change, so you need something that keeps gameplay fresh and that forces them to change:

Balance changes.

And here comes PvP that suplies steady flow of them.

ERGO, quality, long lasting, PvE needs interaction with quality PvP.

JR · Apr 18, 2008, 11:01 AM // 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

I think that you gravely underestimate need for balance in PvE.

IMBA stuff is fun, true, but that fun is short lived. You can only dslash mobs while chaining SY with said splinter and seed on you for so long.

After while, you need change, or you burn out. Now, most players don't want to change, so you need something that keeps gameplay fresh and that forces them to change:

Balance changes.

And here comes PvP that suplies steady flow of them.

ERGO, quality, long lasting, PvE needs interaction with quality PvP.

I mention in the second paragraph that PvE benefits from balance, and I think you misunderstand how that impacts the racial trait abilities I suggested.

I agree that the ridiculous skills/combinations that are just better than anything else (DSlash/SY, SoL, Ursan) are bad for the game. They hurt diversity and limit choice. The racial trait abilities would give people a large number of interesting and powerful abilities to choose from right from the start, and would preserve that diversity.

zwei2stein · Apr 18, 2008, 11:18 AM // 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

I mention in the second paragraph that PvE benefits from balance, and I think you misunderstand how that impacts the racial trait abilities I suggested.

I mostly reacted to "Broken stuff is fun..." paragraph and elaborated why PvP-PvE connection is needed.

Abedeus · Apr 18, 2008, 11:30 AM // 11:30

Agree with zwei2stein. Besides, I miss the pre-Nightfall times (or more like pre-GWEN times, as during NF it wasn't that bad for pve players), where if there was a buff/nerf, old builds in pve/pvp changed and people had new reason to play the game.

But now, what's the point of caring about PvE balance? Unless you change the Healer's Boon/m monk and Ursanway, there is actually no point in changing skills pve-wise. Because it will only affect ,,elitist ursanhaters'' and it won't affect ,,pr0 ursan winners''.

One thing I don't understand is why you compare SoL to D-Slash and D-Slash to Ursanway. D-Slash can be replaced by a paragon, dervish, assassin and ranger, just slap /w on those characters, give SY, whirlwind attack/Barrage/moebius+db combo and you are as good or better (in case of Paragon) as d-slash spammer.

On the other hand, SoL is useless and you can't replace ursan with anything. Elementalist? VERY limited range of knockdowns. Meteor Shower? 60 seconds recharge, horrendous cost and low spammability. Ursan knocks down everything every 8-10 seconds for 2-3 seconds (warriors get a huge advantage over other classes), deals higher damage than d-slasher or other cookie cutter build. This is the worst problem balancing team has to face.

Breakfast Mc Rit · Apr 18, 2008, 11:35 AM // 11:35

I don't think having one race stronger in one aspect than another would be very fun to play. Being able to utilize trait-specific skills should be fun in its self. The very idea of playing an Asura is exciting to me. What would happen if a player wants to use an Asuran Warrior? His game experience would be diminished once he figured out that he was dealing less damage than a Charr Warrior and couldn't even survive in the front lines.

As for making everybody happy; I don't see that happening. Ever. Both PvE and PvP players should learn how to deal with nerfs, buffs and an ever-changing game. I feel for players that only play a few hours a weekend only to come back next week to find their skillbars radically altered, but that's what having hardcore GW friends is for.

xDusT II · Apr 18, 2008, 12:12 PM // 12:12

I don't really like the race bonuses idea because it makes players feel like they have to make a very important decision that cannot be reverted later on. Locking people into something like that can have huge effects for the PvE crowd who may spend thousands of hours on a single character. Making the wrong racial decision and only realising too late could be disastrous and it adds the whole element of massive pre-game planning which I'd like to avoid. Guild wars should always retain it's freedom from lock-ins aspect.

Redfeather1975 · Apr 18, 2008, 12:18 PM // 12:18

I would just prefer if PvE didn't allow combinations that lead to everyone wanting a specific profession, with a specific build in order for something to get started.

It's really a buzz kill when it's so hard to find people willing to try an area with what the group has rather than insisting we need X or X because it kicks so much ass it would be stupid not to use it. That kind of game bores easily.

zwei2stein · Apr 18, 2008, 12:20 PM // 12:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by xDusT II

I don't really like the race bonuses idea because it makes players feel like they have to make a very important decision that cannot be reverted later on. Locking people into something like that can have huge effects for the PvE crowd who may spend thousands of hours on a single character. Making the wrong racial decision and only realising too late could be disastrous and it adds the whole element of massive pre-game planning which I'd like to avoid. Guild wars should always retain it's freedom from lock-ins aspect.

My words. Lasts thing most PvE players want is "Norn??? L2P and reroll as Dwarf, boon!"

DreamWind · Apr 18, 2008, 12:23 PM // 12:23

Good post JR. Agree with just about everything. This 2 week long skill balance doesn't make much sense.

I do think there is an issue concerning overpowered in PvE compared to overpowered in PvP though.

The reason why Anet does not want to touch things like Ursan/Splinter is because it will tick off a large amount of PvE players who could care less about balance and just want to beat the game, farm, or have fun killing stuff. Now I understand that isn't everybody, but I'm guessing it is A LOT. What I'm saying is if something is overpowered in PvE, the game is still playable. You can't compare this to PvP, where overpowered skills make the game completely unplayable.

So I feel Anet saying "we will not make PvP changes that will affect PvE in the future" is almost like saying "we do not care if PvP is unplayable, as long as we don't anger PvE players".

Redfeather1975 · Apr 18, 2008, 12:24 PM // 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

My words. Lasts thing most PvE players want is "Norn??? L2P and reroll as Dwarf, boon!"

I think that's why profession changing exists in PvE.
As an avenue to avoid that state.
As JR said, choice is good. It's also important that in a game where people spend so much time to build up to something there isn't an aspect of the game that can destroy all their momentum if they went in the wrong direction.

JR · Apr 18, 2008, 12:25 PM // 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by xDusT II

I don't really like the race bonuses idea because it makes players feel like they have to make a very important decision that cannot be reverted later on. Locking people into something like that can have huge effects for the PvE crowd who may spend thousands of hours on a single character. Making the wrong racial decision and only realising too late could be disastrous and it adds the whole element of massive pre-game planning which I'd like to avoid. Guild wars should always retain it's freedom from lock-ins aspect.

How is that particularly different to choosing a class? If you roll a Warrior and then later realize you would rather be casting spells then there is nothing you can do but re-roll or be gimped.

Look at World of Warcraft for example, you choose a race and a class, with both impacting the way in which you can play the game effectively. It's the model used by the most popular MMO going, so I think it's difficult to call it fundamentally flawed.

The racial traits don't have to be quite as straight forward or limiting as the examples I gave, or particularly influence how good your race is in a particular class. I agree that it shouldn't be a case of 'if your Warrior isn't Charr you are completely gimped'. They should be passive enough that if you really wanted to you could play a Sylvari Warrior and not be too gimped, and there may indeed be certain situations where a Sylvari Warrior is better than a Charr Warrior.

I do think that a racial trait mechanic offers a good way to divide the skills and prevent skill balances becoming as much of an issue as they do currently.

zwei2stein · Apr 18, 2008, 12:46 PM // 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

How is that particularly different to choosing a class? If you roll a Warrior and then later realize you would rather be casting spells then there is nothing you can do but re-roll or be gimped. It's the model used by the most popular MMO going, so I think it's difficult to call it fundamentally flawed.

Look at World of Warcraft for example, you choose a race and a class, with both impacting the way in which you can play the game effectively.

The racial traits don't have to be quite as straight forward or limiting as the examples I gave, or particularly influence how good your race is in a particular class. I agree that it shouldn't be a case of 'if your Warrior isn't Charr you are completely gimped'.

I do think that a racial trait mechanic offers a good way to divide the skills and prevent skill balances becoming as much of an issue as they do currently.

There is another approach: What you do defines your character. Classless system. In Gws, what you put on bar defines your class.

Ultima Online, father of success of MMOs, for example, used this approach.

Everyone there has two choices: if they went wrong direction, they can either create Alt or they can respec their character. Both that considerable effort, and meaningful decidions.

Tabula Rasa for example allows you to create "checkpoints" in from of clones that allow you to partially reroll character.

---

As far as balance is concerned, i don't see point in restricting each player skills/abilities by race because it simply becomes part of build.

It looks like it not different from just loading different build. fundamentally, Races add one additional variable to builds, making them harder to balance (thats, if you add them to dual-class system we have.), and are inconvenience as far as character development is concerned.

xDusT II · Apr 18, 2008, 12:52 PM // 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

How is that particularly different to choosing a class? If you roll a Warrior and then later realize you would rather be casting spells then there is nothing you can do but re-roll or be gimped. It's the model used by the most popular MMO going, so I think it's difficult to call it fundamentally flawed.

Look at World of Warcraft for example, you choose a race and a class, with both impacting the way in which you can play the game effectively.

The racial traits don't have to be quite as straight forward or limiting as the examples I gave, or particularly influence how good your race is in a particular class. I agree that it shouldn't be a case of 'if your Warrior isn't Charr you are completely gimped'. They should be passive enough that if you really wanted to you could play a Sylvari Warrior and not be too gimped, and there may indeed be certain situations where a Sylvari Warrior is better than a Charr Warrior.

I do think that a racial trait mechanic offers a good way to divide the skills and prevent skill balances becoming as much of an issue as they do currently.

It's interesting that you brought up primary professions as I was thinking about those when I wrote my first post. Primary professions are largely the only real "lock-in" we have in the game, however it doesn't mean it's ok to add more into the game.
There's a very slight difference between realising you don't like your warrior because of the class play style and realising your warrior is at a slight disadvantage in some areas because he chose a specific race.
Racial traits will need to be either extremely subtle or extremely well balanced in order to be implemented smoothly, and it seems that just brings us back to the original problem of balance affecting PvE play.

Basically, I see racial traits as the creative yet dangerous route to take. Getting it wrong will just create more problems than it solves, and this may be one of the cases where a simpler solution may be the better one.

lyra_song · Apr 18, 2008, 12:55 PM // 12:55

I would like to point out that broken/overpowered skills are not always fun.

It creates a linear progression of gameplay that is more like "Stop, Go, Stop, Go" with no real sense of challenge.

I wouldn't tie PVE only specialties to specific races, since that just pigeonholes them into specific functions, creating a lack of diversity in builds.

Under your idea, a Charr Ele would be less effective than an Asura Ele in PvE, so why would anyone want a Charr Ele? PvP would be unaffected, since it essentially is just a skin difference.

Heres what my idea is: http://guildwarsguru.com/forum/showt...php?t=10170019

Kashrlyyk · Apr 18, 2008, 12:58 PM // 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

....
After while, you need change, or you burn out. Now, most players don't want to change, so you need something that keeps gameplay fresh and that forces them to change:

Balance changes.

And here comes PvP that suplies steady flow of them.

ERGO, quality, long lasting, PvE needs interaction with quality PvP.

Wrong on so many levels, wow. It starts pretty good actually with the first paragraph. And then goes down the drain.

If a build gets boring people will change them on their own without outside force or they are going to look for a new game. There is absolutely no reason to force that change. In fact that is the source of the problem. Changing a build because you came to the conclusion that it bores you, is accepted by nearly every PvE player, because PvE is about having fun. Being forced to change your build, because someone else says so is not accepted, be it players telling others what to run or be it skills getting useless through "balance" updates.

Isn´t that the heart of balance? Reaching a place, where players decide to play a certain build, because they want to run it and not because it is stronger?? Where you can choose between several builds without gimping your group??

fowlero · Apr 18, 2008, 12:58 PM // 12:58

I hope that racial traits are not introduced.

Reason being that when you start it may not be "the best choice" to have a warrior as an asura or w/e, and by the time you realise this you may have put a lot of effort into the character and not be as good as that charr over there.

Since you can't (afaik) just change race from asura to charr i wouldn't like that to be such a factor and it'd be simpler to just remove traits, rather than "forcing" them to roll a charr to be a more effective warrior (i recognise that it won't force them, but it'll be strong push to).

It'd just bring more balance into the picture too which atm doesn't seem to be a good thing.

Unless of course they're pve only, but even then i don't think it'd be brilliant what with ursan rank requiring etc. PUG's would require warriors to be only the most effective race, other race warriors would be laughed upon.

However if they could balance it i think it'd be brilliant, but i just doubt they could.

Sab · Apr 18, 2008, 01:01 PM // 13:01

If the devs want to address PvE balance, they need to start by toning down key PvE skills (Ursan, SY!, consumables, etc.). People whining about Splinter having a 8r should be the last thing they're concerned about when PvE is being defined by a very small number of abilities.

As for PvP, it sucks to see skill balances being influenced by people who have some kind of sentimental attachment to their build. Seeing as some of these people hate absolutely any skill update, it'd be better to tell them to just deal with it, rather than let pressing PvP issues remain in the game longer than they already do.

Kashrlyyk · Apr 18, 2008, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyra Song

..Under your idea, a Charr Ele would be less effective than an Asura Ele in PvE, so why would anyone want a Charr Ele?..

Sorry, what??? Why would people play a Charr Ele, even in that scenario above? Because they want to play a Charr Ele!!! Is that really such a foreign concept?

Are computer games players really at a point where only the most effective way to beat a game is played??? Or is it just Lyra Song? And some others on the two forums??

I just remember that some players do enjoy "hardcore" modes and looking for a challenge on their on by "gimping" themselves. So it is not all players.

zwei2stein · Apr 18, 2008, 01:12 PM // 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

Wrong on so many levels, wow. It starts pretty good actually with the first paragraph. And then goes down the drain.

If a build gets boring people will change them on their own without outside force or they are going to look for a new game. There is absolutely no reason to force that change. In fact that is the source of the problem. Changing a build because you came to the conclusion that it bores you, is accepted by nearly every PvE player, because PvE is about having fun. Being forced to change your build, because someone else says so is not accepted, be it players telling others what to run or be it skills getting useless through "balance" updates.

Isn´t that the heart of balance? Reaching a place, where players decide to play a certain build, because they want to run it and not because it is stronger?? Where you can choose between several builds without gimping your group??

My case:

1) Tank'n'Spank

This build is fairly boring. Anytime i was in such group, people complained how bored they are or how lame it is to just maintain bonds.

They didn't change it. Why? It worked well enough and it became standard. And it helped them to reach their goals. There was no incentive to use anything else than fail-safe stuff. Only exceptional players made different groups.

Which brings me to:

2) Ursan (its not that kind of thread, bear with me)

People play it, but even people who play it and like imba factor of it start to voice how unpleasing gameplay experience it is. But they still play it and support it, dont want it to be gone.

Same reason why people were played tank'n'spank. People dont like to change, even if they had more fun, they prefer "good old working" stuff. You really need outside factor.

Everyone eventually finds "their" build they would be unlikely to change even if it started to bore them enough to actually voice it. Seen that often enough.

Ideally, you want all builds equal so that change become voluntary, but if there are imba skills, Incentive to win (or not to let teammates down) is bigger than incentive to change.