Curse

DarkNecrid · Apr 19, 2008, 12:06 PM // 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDL

Because testing stuff without actually committing yourself is NEVER worthwhile, right?

If the changes work, they'll probably be implemented permanently at some point in future. If they don't they won't. if they sort of work, they'll sort of be implemented.

The point is they get to SEE what effect these changes have without actually committing to a permanent change, which is what they should be doing all the time, to be honest.

They have a test server, with testers, exactly for this. You are basically calling Anet stupid to make a skill balance for PvP for a tournament with double the amount of prizes on the line, without testing it already.

RotteN · Apr 19, 2008, 12:09 PM // 12:09

If they're testing changes, they would simply say so. They have done so in the past.

Now they actually said they'd be reverting them. And that is simply useless. Leave PvE out of the balance issue.

Rocky Raccoon · Apr 19, 2008, 12:13 PM // 12:13

It's ANET's game to do with as they see fit, not ours. We have the option to play the game as it is presented to us and the option not to play if we are not happy. If ANET makes choices that ultimately drive people away, they will realize they made some wrong decisions. I for one just really enjoy the game and adjust to whatever they may present to us.

DDL · Apr 19, 2008, 12:14 PM // 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

They have a test server, with testers, exactly for this. You are basically calling Anet stupid to make a skill balance for PvP for a tournament with double the amount of prizes on the line, without testing it already.

Testers != entire GW community.

They're not perfect. If they were, there wouldn't BE gimmick builds, because they'd be spotted well in advance.

You're really not thinking this through. And you're all still massively overreacting on what is still a tentative statement.

quickmonty · Apr 19, 2008, 12:25 PM // 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDL

You know what I really, really resent? The use of 'ursan' as a "hah! I win the argument!" tactic in every post. Look: not everyone uses it. Seriously, there are a ton of people who don't even HAVE it, and of those that have it, not all of them use it. Certainly there are relatively few people who use it ALL THE TIME, FOR EVERYTHING.

Thanks, from all the PvE players who actually use skills, and don't bother with Ursan. (I'm one)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

How many people would play Chess if one side got four extra Queens?

You actually think the imbalance in PvP is anywhere NEAR playing chess with four extra queens? LOL!

Do we really need all these threads that revert to the old PvP vs. PvE arguments? Perhaps the mods can clean up this forum a little, possibly consolidating all this stuff into one thread?

DarkNecrid · Apr 19, 2008, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDL

Testers != entire GW community.

They're not perfect. If they were, there wouldn't BE gimmick builds, because they'd be spotted well in advance.

You're really not thinking this through. And you're all still massively overreacting on what is still a tentative statement.

gimmick builds mostly only happen in HA because the format supports them. Gimmick builds in GvG are spotted well in advanced and almost always taken care of shortly.

AJD · Apr 19, 2008, 12:45 PM // 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

They have a test server, with testers, exactly for this. You are basically calling Anet stupid to make a skill balance for PvP for a tournament with double the amount of prizes on the line, without testing it already.

How can you test this sort of change on a test server? Zombie Jesus.

Some in this thread are just basically saying "Mine MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE!"

Avarre · Apr 19, 2008, 01:00 PM // 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDL

Because testing stuff without actually committing yourself is NEVER worthwhile, right?

If the changes work, they'll probably be implemented permanently at some point in future. If they don't they won't. if they sort of work, they'll sort of be implemented.

The point is they get to SEE what effect these changes have without actually committing to a permanent change, which is what they should be doing all the time, to be honest.

This would make perfect sense if the changes being made were in any way major. They're not. If ANet wants to implement temporary changes for testing, they should be much larger overhauls of skills and mechanics, but this is a small skill rebalance.

~ Dan ~ · Apr 19, 2008, 01:36 PM // 13:36

The quote in the OP is spot on. GW's PvP, R.I.P.

Shuuda · Apr 19, 2008, 01:44 PM // 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan-the-noob

The quote in the OP is spot on. GW's PvP, R.I.P.

And when PvP is dead, GW will have lost everything that made it a unique and potenially great game. Let's see:

Grindless PvE - Say hell to "LOLZ u muzt hav r8 norn 4 Urzan!!£"!11231!" or other PvE skills

Supported PvP - Got shot at Nightfall. Dead now.

Different from WoW - Well, most PvErs just want a WoW clone anyway.

Crom The Pale · Apr 19, 2008, 01:46 PM // 13:46

[QUOTE=Tamuril elansar]agreed with joe.

Anet should never has stated they will delete this update after mAT just for the sake of pve...

what's Anet trying to do? making a full pve game out of GW?[/QUOTE]

One can only hope

Truthfully, GW should have been 2 games not one in the first place. Integrating PvP and PvE just will not work. Think of it like this, would you want to face a complete AI team in GvG?

The dynamics of both are very diverse, creating a single set of rules/skills that work in both forces a constant shifting of imbalance from one to the other.

YES there is balance in PvE, its just not the same as balance in PvP. In PvE you have a variety of mob sizes to deal with and monsters that get bonuses to thier HP/Energy/Damage/Number of foes.

How can skills balanced for 8vs8 work in an 8vs100 setting?

PvE and PvP must be split!

Avarre · Apr 19, 2008, 01:57 PM // 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

How can skills balanced for 8vs8 work in an 8vs100 setting?

PvE and PvP must be split!

Or ANet could not design 8v100 areas for PvE and instead make monster groups of 8 or 10 with varied classes and actual skillbars, thus enabling balance to be relatively similar across the board.

Course, that's harder than just putting in multiple copies of the same monster with jacked-up levels and area effects in place.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Apr 19, 2008, 02:13 PM // 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

If you can't see the difference in importance of the two with regards to balance then I'm not sure why you are in this discussion.

I never said they are the same, just one is no longer any more important then the other at this point. They both reward with in game stuff, so like I said they are the same level of importance. Yes both need there balancing, probably PvP more so because as others said you could do the vast majority of PvE with a 5 skill bar and proper tactics. But I don't think that either should be balanced at the sake of the other. We all know that PvE has been taking hits for PvP balance and if you could name 10 skills balanced for PvE that hurt PvP I would like to see that. We just need separate skill tracts.

Crom The Pale · Apr 19, 2008, 02:20 PM // 14:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

Or ANet could not design 8v100 areas for PvE and instead make monster groups of 8 or 10 with varied classes and actual skillbars, thus enabling balance to be relatively similar across the board.

Course, that's harder than just putting in multiple copies of the same monster with jacked-up levels and area effects in place.

The problem with that is your creating a PvE game that is basically PvP vs an AI foe....

PvE is all about the massive mobs and overpowered bosses.

Nyree · Apr 19, 2008, 02:29 PM // 14:29

In every MMORPG we find discussions between PVE and PVP. Everytime someone change something to improve or change one aspect of one of the playstyles, people from the other side complains, this neverending battle between PVE and PVP is not GW only, every MMO suffers from the same problem. If we find this in any game why the game designers insists to put PVE and PVP together if it doesn't work, why?

IMHO, as Crom said, PVE and PVP should be split.

Faer · Apr 19, 2008, 02:36 PM // 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

PvE is all about the massive mobs and overpowered bosses.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Avarre · Apr 19, 2008, 02:39 PM // 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crom The Pale

The problem with that is your creating a PvE game that is basically PvP vs an AI foe....

I don't see any problem here. The only things that would lose out are;

a) Farmers
b) Players that rely on one exploitative tactic (tanking, for instance) to clear huge numbers with no effort,

while players who wanted to be more open with build design and experiment more would be rewarded as there would be more viable strategies than 'prot spirit against the 300 damage super boss attack and then charge'.

Quote:

PvE is all about the massive mobs and overpowered bosses.

Fighting the same mob 100 times and then picking anti-boss invulnerability exploit #276 to win the game is hardly what I would consider interesting PvE. It's also the anti-thesis to a game that emphasizes skill over grind.

GW is not a MMO, there is no reason why it should follow the stereotype of MMO PvE when it is trying to maintain competitive PvP with a PvE game.

In fact, PvE styles that are most effective in the massive mob environmentare the same PvE styles that gets 'negatively affected' by PvP balancing. A huge number of the problems could be solved by designing PvE in a better manner, without the hassle of designing two games at once.

Surena · Apr 19, 2008, 02:55 PM // 14:55

Avarre, what about casual players?

I don't think they are the ones who like experimenting with builds and want to prepare, build against multiple foes with different skillbars/synergies.

While a) and b) is the exact kind of group that feeds on bad PvE design, doesn't get bothered by the lack of challange, bad AI, you're forgetting the ones that don't dedicate such amounts of time, and they're probably the majority that buy the game.

I think that kind of design you propose should be for higher end areas of the game which should be much more prominent and multiple, covering parts of the map (so no seperation), be explorable and not lead to some dungeon or "special area" like DoA, ToA. So a casual could stay on the safe roads, paths to outposts, cities while the more skilled player might risk going into other zones or parts that are known to be very dangerous.

~ Dan ~ · Apr 19, 2008, 03:07 PM // 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surena

Avarre, what about casual players?

I don't think they are the ones who like experimenting with builds and want to prepare, build against multiple foes with different skillbars/synergies.

So what you're saying is, instead, they want to take the same 8 bars and shit all over every single mob without having to think? Because, it's either 1 or the other.

Using your brain to build for the job at hand takes 5 minutes. If you don't want to change your bars for different situations, stick ursan on it and stop complaining.

Did you not think the bars & AI of EOTN monsters were better? More interesting?

Avarre · Apr 19, 2008, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surena

I think that kind of design you propose should be for higher end areas of the game which should be much more prominent and multiple, covering parts of the map (so no seperation), be explorable and not lead to some dungeon or "special area" like DoA, ToA. So a casual could stay on the safe roads, paths to outposts, cities while the more skilled player might risk going into other zones or parts that are known to be very dangerous.

Sure. The vast majority of game content is level 20, endgame PvE areas. These are the kind of thing that would be made of balanced enemy groups. The lower-level areas would, ideally, act as a sort of preparation stage for that - groups that are less varied, or have less effective setups, and so on, so as not to make the learning curve too steep.

Although you seem to take from my post that players would have to build against foes constantly in order to be effective, but this isn't really what I meant. If the skills were balanced appropriately, a single balanced build setup would be able to win the game because it would be able to deal with everything. You wouldn't need to spec specifically against a type of enemy because no area would have a specific type of enemy - so a GvG-esque balanced build would be able to proceed through everything. You might have to use different tactics (target prioritization and such), and while speccing against an area specifically might make you more effective, changing your build constantly wouldn't be definitely necessary.

This would encourage solid build design and open far more avenues for successful build variation in PvE, while at the same time making a more cohesive game overall between PvE and PvP.