Curse

Shayne Hawke · May 18, 2009, 04:36 AM // 04:36

This makes me wish more that I were able to see more about what ANet goes through in evaluating different skills to balance each month and the reasoning behind them. Not exactly the Developer Updates to the skill balances. I want to know what they were considering changing, why they were considering it, and why they didn't/couldn't do it. It looks pretty pathetic to only see a few proper skill changes in the Updates each month when there was probably a whole other number of skill shifts that they had thought about that we can't see.

Second-Strike · May 18, 2009, 05:05 AM // 05:05

A lot of the changes just look like you found an underpowered skill and came up with a random buff. However I do like some of the added affects to make some of the skills more useful. Basicly you would need to test the skills individually, determine what is lacking, what can be done to change that and the changes affects across all levels of play. There are some quality changes mixed up in the randomness though.

It would be nice if A-net released a similar update, though more polished. That way the game can go back to people using more creativity in creating builds. Really the best way of adding in replayability is changing up skills, running the same things over and over is what makes it boring.

Rhamia Darigaz · May 18, 2009, 05:11 AM // 05:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MithranArkanere

Quite... well, you sure don't have access to the skill usage statistics Anet has.

Oh, by the way, a glyph has low energy cost, namely 5 (with the exception of polymock glyphs that cost 1). That's one of the 'basics' of a glyph. You don't touch that. A glyph with an energy cost of 25 is an aberration.

laws describing the nature of things do not imply that an exception to the law is impossible, but that an exception to the law has never been observed. the fact that the law of glyphs states that "all glyphs will cost 5 energy" does not prevent the possibility that there may exist a glyph which does not cost 5 energy. if a glyph which does not cost 5 energy is observed the law of glyphs must be changed to account for this new observation. alternatively we could change the definition of a glyph so that the new observation is no longer a glyph under the new definition. either way, it is not impossible for there to exist an object which would be a glyph under the current definition and not cost 5 energy.

also, OP, your method of skill balancing is terrible. nerfing overpowered skills is preferable to buffing underpowered skills. bad/pve players may think otherwise but they're wrong. not that anet doesn't make stupid unnecessary buffs, but your intentional aversion to nerfs is worse. i'd rather not go into specific problems with your proposed balances because there are just so many i don't care to write them down or sift through them for the worst ones and, frankly, i do not find your opinion on guild wars skill balancing valuable enough to spend time reading all of them.
tl;dr: the answer to your question is no.

Skye Marin · May 18, 2009, 05:28 AM // 05:28

More than a handful of buffs are pretty good, but that's because when you're lost in the desert for long enough, you'll drink the sand because you won't know the difference.

Many other changes would break the game. For example:

Quote:

Second Wind: Change to: You lose all exhaustion and gain 1 energy for each point of exhaustion lost. You also gain 10 energy if no exhaustion was lost.

This lets Gale to be spammed on recharge, even on a warrior. Exhaustion should never be recoverable by a skill benefit.

Many other skills are "so what" buffs, like the recent decrease in cost to IW from 15 to 5. Doesn't do anything to make the class more fun, or define it better.

Focus on small changes, which strong reasoning behind them.

Dark Dragon · May 18, 2009, 12:11 PM // 12:11

Like may have already said a mixed bag.

The main problem is that you do not want to nerf and only buff skills. Despite all the QQ that happens when things get nerfed it is necessary.

If things were only ever buffed then this would lead to a horrible power creep cycle.

Tenebrae · May 18, 2009, 01:21 PM // 13:21

I stopped reading on W changes , exhaustion on a melee attack skill ..... are you on crack ?

Abedeus · May 18, 2009, 01:36 PM // 13:36

Well, at least you have put up more time into this than Izzy does every month.

deadman_uk · May 23, 2009, 01:17 AM // 01:17

I like the Paragon edits. I really feel Paragons need a buff overall, by far the weakest profession in GW.

Nerel · May 24, 2009, 01:14 AM // 01:14

I immediately scrolled down to Death Pact Signet, laughed and said "No thankyou." I then scrolled back up and looked at your user name... memories began to stir... wait, isn't this the guy that made those "How not to be a noob in Guild wars" videos on YouTube and managed to fail to understand how Deep Wound works in one?

pumpkin pie · May 25, 2009, 06:49 AM // 06:49

I am not reading your change or going to bother to read it. Why then do I still answers your question, you ask.

Here it is, If a team of people working on balancing skills can't do a good job as you claim that they can't, what makes you think that a one person knowledge can be any better then it already is?

so /not signed to what you are asking. I am also not doing the survey because as I've explained above, you cannot do this alone.

Sifow Chan · May 25, 2009, 07:31 AM // 07:31

I don't quite agree on many of the Paragon skills. You pretty much just made all of them affect allies...Not much of a balance.

[DE] · May 25, 2009, 03:44 PM // 15:44

Just... no. Balancing a game does not solely revolve around buffing useless skills. All you're doing is begging for a power creep. A game can be perfectly balanced and have plenty of unused skills (not saying that Guild Wars is balanced).

Somehow the community fails to understand this.

MirkoTeran · May 25, 2009, 04:00 PM // 16:00

For the suggestion: Hell no. Buffing skills across the board => power creep = bad.

As for the title/OP: "Could I skill balance better than Anet?" ... there are a few people that could do a better job, but you sir, are not one of them. Not by a long shot.