Curse

Chris Blackstar · Jun 20, 2007, 12:18 PM // 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Servant of Kali

Seriously, SO MANY SKILLS WORK IN PvE, why do people have a need to argue over skill balances??

PvE is as easy as can be, 13yr old people can finish it without a problem. Are you seriously complained about Mark of Rodgort being nerfed?

I was able to finish Nightfall more or less with STARTER armor. You can't possibly tell me that nerfing Mark of Rodgort is a reason for concern, when you have your PvE only skills and i don't care how much they are overpowered.

I play both PvE and PvP, and NEVER complained about nerfs. Why? Because i understand what "balance" means. I understand that using the same overpowered skills isn't fun. Not for me. I used to fight against Mursaat in Southern Shiverpeaks (Inquisitor etc) with non-infused group of like 6 people. We still beat it. Did i complain when Shelter/Union/Displacement got nerfed? No. Why not? Because it was too strong. Etc etc.

PvE still has an insane number of overpowered skills; SS would be overpowered even with 25 energy, Empathy is overpowered in PvE too, MM is overpowered, etc. It really isn't that hard to use overpowered skills in PvE. .

Dude it easy for you to say that, you do not play in the hard areas of the game, go to DOA and say that, them do it in HM. I will admit that sometimes with a good team things are easy, but that swings both ways, and good team in PvP, and they make it look easy to. Is it the skills and how they are overpowered? Hell no, it'f the players ability to use the skills in a way that is best for the team to win.

If you have a team with the same skills same balance, then their should be a stalemate, but if the other team is able to beat them, then it shows that they just had better ability to use the skills to win.

Nothing is overpowered in this game, never has, never will because everyone has access to the same skills, it just that some teams or players play better then others.

Are you going to nerf how football is played just because one team keeps winning the superbowl. Maybe take away their ability to pass the ball to have their running backs not run as quick, just because one team complained that they or their skills are too powerful and it's unfair.

Well A Net does do that to this game!!!

Miral · Jun 20, 2007, 12:18 PM // 12:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Blackstar

If you want Balance in PvP, you do not need to Balance skills, what you need to to add new elements and objectives. In HA on some maps have HM mobs that hit for 200+ damage attacking everyone, while playing a version of capture the flag. In GvG have if a team is able to steal the guild flag then, mobs of NPC's attack their base to get it back, all enhanced with HM attrubutes asnd full skill bars.

heh that would be a good response to the "make PvE like PvP" thread. but it also has a point for balance purposes... strict PvP people (which incidentally is what the core testing team is made of mostly) don't really have any insight on how things work against hardmode mobs... maybe introducing some into pvp would indeed be enlightening. hehehehehe... you're evil!

Lord Nibiru · Jun 20, 2007, 12:18 PM // 12:18

Nerfing is stupid. Balance is stupid. Just leave the way it is.
Remember nerfing touchers? we found how to deal against them(smarter one before nerf),but after they nerfed it some months later we all know how to play against them.
Nerfing Paragon motivating skills? Why? They were good counter against SF ele...but they both got nerfed.
Nerfing Spirit Bond....it could deal against BoA sins,but they both got nerfed.

I found GW at the begining interesting because I though that maybe one day I will make very good build so every1 would fear me,and then they will start to think how to beat me.It was good feeling.

I though players need be smart to be good players,that they need make powerful build to prove they are good players. And when they do that,Anet nerf skill/skills and then one who made build thinks how stupid it is. ( players started to find how to counter me,but before they all learn Anet done it's job)

So,for me GW is not anymore hard for me,there is no need to think,use balanced build,play against balanced builds and then think you are the best player in the world because you maybe better play that build.And enjoy in a telekinesis ability to know what your opponent will play because 80% builds are the same,15% builds are "noob builds" and other 5 % builds are something what players try to do to make GW interesting.

I don't want say GW is boring,but sometimes it's boring when you play PvP and see every1 have same builds.And every1 call some1 else noob.
And every1 time someone make not-noob build it get nerfed.

so,I think Anet have a huge problem. Once they started to nerf they can't stop. They think they are the smartest and they don't give a damn chance to us to learn how to play against some1 build.

I really feel sorry for people who are smart and who made some powerful builds that got nerfed.

Enjoy in balanced play!

arcanemacabre · Jun 20, 2007, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

This would keep the PvE-only people and the PvP-only people happy, yes.

But what about the people who play both? Do you know how much of a nightmare it would be to have two separate skill descriptions for every single skill?

Honestly, though, how is it that much different than it is now? Just because the skills are the same, they are used to a completely different effect in PvE vs. PvP. Builds are drastically different, with many skills that see use in PvE not seeing any use whatsoever in PvP. The players treat the two worlds completely different, would it be that much of a stretch if they actually were?

For the record, I do play both, and I honestly don't see why it would be that difficult to change mindsets from one to the other (I do anyway). Can you honestly say it's that frustrating to go from, say playing GW, to playing a racing game, for instance? Those operate completely differently, too, and surely you can master both in the same time period. I play 5-6 different games, all with completely different controls and things to memorize - it's not that hard.

Kakumei · Jun 20, 2007, 12:36 PM // 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Honestly, though, how is it that much different than it is now? Just because the skills are the same, they are used to a completely different effect in PvE vs. PvP. Builds are drastically different, with many skills that see use in PvE not seeing any use whatsoever in PvP. The players treat the two worlds completely different, would it be that much of a stretch if they actually were?

For the record, I do play both, and I honestly don't see why it would be that difficult to change mindsets from one to the other (I do anyway). Can you honestly say it's that frustrating to go from, say playing GW, to playing a racing game, for instance? Those operate completely differently, too, and surely you can master both in the same time period. I play 5-6 different games, all with completely different controls and things to memorize - it's not that hard.

Gran Turismo doesn't have a skill called "Searing Flames" and you don't have any preconceived notions about what it's supposed to do.

arcanemacabre · Jun 20, 2007, 12:40 PM // 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

Gran Turismo doesn't have a skill called "Searing Flames" and you don't have any preconceived notions about what it's supposed to do.

So the names and preconceived notions are going to confuse you? The fact that your facing human opponents rather than swarms of mobs isn't going to make you realize what area of the game you're playing in? Again, PvP and PvE are already clearly different games, surely even a child could figure out which is which and realize what skills do what where. Or am I greatly overestimating the player base?

Traveller · Jun 20, 2007, 12:46 PM // 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Nibiru

.

Everything's a big overreaction nowadays. 13 dmg drop on Searing flames makes it unplayable? I even use a motivation-specced Paragon from time to time - I believe for them, the drop in healing was about 10 health from the skills. OMG NERFED! Sometimes I even use other fire magic elites than SF! Put me in a straight jacket already!

Why do you have to worry about a build so much? Believe it or not, there are several combinations that work in PvE (and PvP as well, although I'm not an expert on high-level PvP). I'll admit this - I'd like to see more buffs from A-Net to lesser used skills to balance the nerfs more and make more viable options, but even so, as long as the nerfs won't make a skill totally unplayable, it's fine with me.

DreamRunner · Jun 20, 2007, 12:57 PM // 12:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miral

heh that would be a good response to the "make PvE like PvP" thread. but it also has a point for balance purposes... strict PvP people (which incidentally is what the core testing team is made of mostly) don't really have any insight on how things work against hardmode mobs... maybe introducing some into pvp would indeed be enlightening. hehehehehe... you're evil!

I would rather fight HM Mobs than rit spike. Why? It would be easier to counter.

Gli · Jun 20, 2007, 01:19 PM // 13:19

The easy way to keep PvE and PvP "separate but equal" is to give them a different maximum level. Say, the traditional level 20 for PvP, and lvl 30 or whatever, for PvE. Different attribute maximums as well.

That way, skills can be balanced for PvP in the traditional fashion, and the higher attribute levels can be made completely suitable for PvE without any regard to PvP balance. The numbers will be a bit higher in PvE, but things would be generally the same. Also, the people who regularly pop up asking for a higher level cap will be happy as well.

(Just a random, spur of the moment thought, don't take this too seriously. Perhaps GW2 will do something like this, having a much higher level cap. It's far too late in the lifetime of GW to bother with this anyway. The complete PvE setting would need to be rebalanced.)

noblepaladin · Jun 20, 2007, 01:27 PM // 13:27

Or they can buff Intensity or Elemental Lord a little bit to make up for the Ele nerf. That's the point of the PvE skills right? It gives them an extra variable to work with.

Lord Mendes · Jun 20, 2007, 01:44 PM // 13:44

How to separate PvP and PvE in terms of skill balance?
Make more PVE only skills, and make them powerful enough to be used.
Kills two birds with one stone, you let Izzy do his job without the constant nagging about every little skill balance ("omg an overbuffed skill from 2 updates ago was nerfed!!!"), and you get to play EZ mode and blow shit up with bigger numbers. PvE only skills could also help solve the whole "OMg mesmers r useless in PvE! Gimme damage!!!" dilemma and balance the classes out among themselves.
They could even make some cool PvE only skills that actually require skill (lol) to obtain, such as by capping them off Glint, Rurik, Lich, Shiro, etc in HM. It could add loads of depth to the PvE content all while improving the overall balance of the skills in PvP.
If no one nags, Izzy can do his job properly.

Win/win situation imo.
yes/no?

Miral · Jun 20, 2007, 01:52 PM // 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Mendes

How to separate PvP and PvE in terms of skill balance?
Make more PVE only skills, and make them powerful enough to be used.
Kills two birds with one stone, you let Izzy do his job without the constant nagging about every little skill balance ("omg an overbuffed skill from 2 updates ago was nerfed!!!"), and you get to play EZ mode and blow shit up with bigger numbers. PvE only skills could also help solve the whole "OMg mesmers r useless in PvE! Gimme damage!!!" dilemma and balance the classes out among themselves.
They could even make some cool PvE only skills that actually require skill (lol) to obtain, such as by capping them off Glint, Rurik, Lich, Shiro, etc in HM. It could add loads of depth to the PvE content all while improving the overall balance of the skills in PvP.
If no one nags, Izzy can do his job properly.

Win/win situation imo.
yes/no?

it took them forever just to come up with 20 somewhat lame skills that needed nerfed the same day they were released... i think anything other than tweaking is going to be out of the question, especially as they get closer and closer to the GWEN release and full manpower into GW2.

lyra_song · Jun 20, 2007, 02:01 PM // 14:01

They can modify skills to have inherent anti-monster effects built into the skill.

heres some made up examples.

Decisive Stab. Sword Attack. This skill cannot be blocked. If it hits, it causes +_____ damage and bleeding. If it hits a Non-Ascended or Non-human fleshy target, that target suffers deep wound for ______.

Fifth Degree. Spell. This spell causes _____ damage and burning for ____ seconds. If it hits a Non-Ascended or Non-Human target, all foes in the area suffer burning for ____ seconds.

Richocheting Shot: Bow Attack. This skill cannot be blocked. If this attack hits a target with armor higher than 70, target and adjacent foes suffer ___ damage. If it hits a target with armor higher than (Put armor level of lvl 24 enemies here), target and all adjacent foes suffer deep wound for ____ seconds.

Do you see what i mean?

The first half of the skill is what is balanced for PvP. This is what is tweaked for PvP.
The second half of the skill is for PvE. This added damage or effect does not affect PvP and bolsters the skill for PvE.

arcanemacabre · Jun 20, 2007, 02:02 PM // 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Mendes

If no one nags, Izzy can do his job properly.

LMAO, yeah I'm sure PvEers complaining is why he isn't "do[ing] his job properly." Too funny, Mendes, just too funny.

myword · Jun 20, 2007, 02:14 PM // 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

I can't think of a single skill/attribute/class that has been balanced purely or even mainly because of PvE. Even half, or partly. It's always said after the nerf "oh yeah, it was overpowered in PvE, too!" as pure hindsight bias. Skill balances are 99-100% entirely because of PvP.

how often do you see PvE players complaining that an overpowered skill is overpowered and makes their PvE experience too easy?

almost never because the majority prefer to be able to breeze through PvE, giving themselves a false sense of accomplishment

Nekretaal · Jun 20, 2007, 02:22 PM // 14:22

Why balance everything? Well, because otherwise you have an unbalanced game? Whats wrong with an unbalanced game?

Three games that came out at about the same time as Guild wars are the X-men Legends, X-men legends 2, Marvel Utimate Alliance series. This series features instanced gameplay, online co-op with no interaction from others once the instance is set, and sold about a much (actually a little more) as Guild wars so its a good comparison.

In an X-men Legends game, the classes are purposefully unbalanced for roleplaying reasons. If "Elektra" is Weaker than "The Hulk," then the reason for this is "duh, a chick isnt going to beat up a gamma radiated monster" and not game balance. However the X-men legends series have the following features as a result:

(1) Since the game must be completeable with the weakest classes, the game is easy (too easy?) with the other classes.

(2) The games arent very replayable once the storyline mode is finished.

(3) The pvp modes (starting with x-men legends 2) are underdeveloped, unbalanced and unplayed. Some teams are just stronger than others. Its only a toy to fool around with, and nobody takes it seriously.

I dont think that X-men Legends/Marvel Ultimate alliance would work too well as a monthy-fee MMO. It just wouldnt be cool to have everyone as wolverine or a healer. Players in such a game, racing for status or grinding for high levels and gear (Guild Wars 2) wolnt invest time in characters that wolnt ever be good. As such The x-men legends series, while enormously fun, similar to guild wars in a lot of ways, and also enormously profitable... is also disposable PvE.. where players play the game and return it to gamefly after they beat it in one weekend.

I dont want to disparage unbalanced games. Unbalanced games are fun, when they arent "too easy." Unbalanced games can even be done online as co-op with success. But they lose a lot on replayability and dont have pvp.

Patrick Smit · Jun 20, 2007, 02:30 PM // 14:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miral

1. yes... for pvp ( though a lot of the supposed imbalances are just cases of people refusing to bring counters O.O )
2. eh until they topple the king, 55, I see most so called farming nerfs as just spiteful things that really have no place... they need to fix the issue of farming itself (increase drops for everyone and institute full loot scale system so you get the same drops whether yer solo or in group of 8 henchmen) instead of just nerfing skills based around botting.
3. challenge can be self imposed in pve... take a pug into gate of pain with no heroes but dunkoro, and that's a challenge fer sher without nerfing anything. the more you nerf, the more it just becomes all hero play without challenge...

Let me first state: I agree with u

Well as with all nerfs they can be circumvented one way or the other. I don't recall whether bots used fow, and whether they still use it. Bus tome places have been effectively cleaned, while others just harm players. The problem with farming is that you actually don't want to hurt players, whil u want to hurt professional farmers. UI guess this is impossible. Unless farming gold items/greens is the ones we should go after. For normal loot, u should probably have full scaling. But then bots don't require attention, they just do their jobs.

As to heroes, we can discuss long whether they are good or not. Selfimposing challenges, most people won't do that. The goal will be for many to pass without too much effort, while there are some "crazy" people out there that like such challenges. What is maybe more important (and I forgot to mention) is that you don't want profession discrimination. SO nerfing one can be good for another. But so far my reaction on your post.

TabascoSauce · Jun 20, 2007, 05:37 PM // 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Um....but what about all the PvPers who constantly demand that skills be changed because of stale meta?

I think that the concept "stale" is mis-used on their part. With regular churning via nerfs on ANets part, they must find anything more than 5 or 10 days old "stale".

The comparison in the old thread was to the card game Magic - and how they kept the metagame going with orders of magnitude less capability of alterations than ANet.

The point of the thread about the meta was to show that, as Lord_Nibiru stated, counter-builds will come up with time.

ANet is discouraging innovation and evolution by regular nerfing. Why do anything when the dominant meta changes in a few weeks?

Thanks!
TabascoSauce

Yichi · Jun 20, 2007, 06:01 PM // 18:01

wow... this thread is so full of fail...

lyra_song · Jun 20, 2007, 06:14 PM // 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by TabascoSauce

Why do anything when the dominant meta changes in a few weeks?

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

When a gimmicky build becomes obviously domininant in the metagame and people jump on the bandwagon, whats easier to do?

Develop a counter-build to force the metagame in a new direction?

or

Whine to Anet to change it?

Say the metagame was....i dunno...something stupid....like....Pet Smite Monks with Paragon healers. Lets say 90% of the builds were that or variations of that. Whats that create? A very boring metagame.

Anet sees this. Theres people calling for a nerf. Theres people saying, just counter it.

So....lets take the first option. Anet nerfs the build. Hurray. Now Pvers are gonna pissed (somehow) and complain that Anet loves only PvP. The meta shifts and here we go again.

Lets look at option 2. Anet does nothing. Maybe they go do something and let the meta take care of itself. PvPers get pissed that Anet is doing nothing and they love PvE more.

What should happen is a counter build develops. Since the meta is saturated with a dominant build, the counter-build has a good chance of winning based on killing the dominant build. Slowly...the meta shifts away from the original gimmick to the counter, which no longer has anything to counter and gets demolished by a new dominant build. And it continues.

While there ARE times when theres no way to change the metagame outside of Anet's help, since the builds involve insanely overpowered due to broken skills, theres times when shifting the metagame can be done by the players without Anet's help.

The existing situation with the nerf to hexes and slight buff to Hex removal is a "nudge" to shift meta, vs what Anet has done before with more drastic skill changes.

So what should Anet be doing? Meddling with the metagame or letting the players control it? What about the players demanding change? Should they be ignored? Just how viable or unviable are the counters to existing dominant builds in the metagame?