Curse

Chocobo1 · Jun 24, 2009, 03:12 AM // 03:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenixtech

I think you've missed my point. Yes you have 8 players, and you are now forced to bring all sorts of stuff to counter the others or atleast most of the common builds that you might potentially face. The problem with this approach to the game, is that it eventually converges everything into one single mainstream build: the jack of all trades "balanced" build. See my starcraft analogy on why this is bad for the game.

My idea of game balance is Starcraft where you have different styles of play that all have a equal chance of winning. Where you can dynamically switch strategies mid-game to counter opponent strategies, so an RTS-like approach. Oh for the idiots that will say "then go play starcraft" I plan to, so don't bother trolling.

You use Starcraft like its the perfect game. People in Starcraft use the same stratergies over and over. I'm a Zerg player, and I'll take for instance the ZvZ matchup. It's practically just mass more Mutalisks than the other player to win. It's not that varied either. People use what works best. People rarely switch stratergies mid game, as they set up for a certain stratergy generally which best counters the enemy race.

Meta builds are just what people see the pros use and so everyone uses it. People always come up with better builds than before, and improve on it so if you want to bother to try figure out a new build that is effective you can do so. People think it's so clear cut on what works good and what doesn't, but the problem is no one wants to try.

Darth The Xx · Jun 24, 2009, 03:55 AM // 03:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobo1

You use Starcraft like its the perfect game. People in Starcraft use the same stratergies over and over. I'm a Zerg player, and I'll take for instance the ZvZ matchup. It's practically just mass more Mutalisks than the other player to win. It's not that varied either. People use what works best. People rarely switch stratergies mid game, as they set up for a certain stratergy generally which best counters the enemy race.

Meta builds are just what people see the pros use and so everyone uses it. People always come up with better builds than before, and improve on it so if you want to bother to try figure out a new build that is effective you can do so. People think it's so clear cut on what works good and what doesn't, but the problem is no one wants to try.

And those zergling vs zergling skirmishes are so funny in the early game.

On topic I feel this thread has been well covered, the vast majority of people hate this idea and in all honesty, to me it seems like a QQ from the OP about how his team build can't beat others so wants to be able to change midgame.

Anybody have any other NEW input?

moriz · Jun 24, 2009, 04:52 AM // 04:52

in every competitive game, there needs to be a mechanism that allows a player who is behind, to work his way back into games. games like starcraft and streetfighter have it built in. games like magic: the gathering are best out of threes with limited side decks, so a build disadvantage can be remedied in subsequent matches.

GW, whether if any of you like the OP's idea or not, needs this mechanism. the easiest way to implement this is to make all RO16 matches be best out of threes; however, this will make elimination rounds really long. the OP's idea WILL work, if proper limitations are put in place. i don't know what needs to be added to the idea, but it shouldn't be possible for a spike build to turn into a hex pressure build. a generic balanced build shouldn't be able to specialize enough to hard-counter anything. etc etc. a hex build should only morph into a slightly different hex build, a spike build should turn into a slightly different spike build.

dusanyu · Jun 24, 2009, 07:55 AM // 07:55

wow just wow

you know they removed armor switching years back in PvP because it was a Balance issue and you think this wont be a problem?

I Write Sins · Jun 24, 2009, 09:09 AM // 09:09

/unsigned

ok...
so....
aside from this being a horrid idea,

u realize... how long it would take to change builds and armor... even if its just a few clicks...
now u got you're whole team pratically afk for 10 seconds to change builds ?
or were u gonna make them temporarily invinicible for a few seconds to change (and risk them possibly becoming invicible mid-spike from the other team?)

or were u just wanting to start the whole match over from the beginning with the people having loaded their new builds?
like... really..
thats prettymuch just doing the same fight 3 times in a row...

Oh! i got a solution for you...
howz about::
you

git gud
?

:O

then u wont ned to change builds midway thru game b/c ur previous one was phail bc u dunno wtfxhaow to make gud build

lulz

phoenixtech · Jun 25, 2009, 04:19 AM // 04:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobo1

You use Starcraft like its the perfect game. People in Starcraft use the same stratergies over and over.

Starcraft balance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GW balance. In the old days, GW rewarded execution and to some extent strategy. An example of strategy would be say splitting mid match since going 8v8 doesn't work in your favor. These days, GW mostly rewards execution. Now, you could revert some of the GvG stuff to bring some sense of strategy back into the game at that level, or you can challenge the status-quo and try something like this limited "sidedeck" skill swaps. It could be limited in say only non-elites and only twice a match. It could be limited in other ways, but the bottom line is, having this type of thing could potentially improve the variety of play, especially at the RA/TA levels where the need for "sidedecks" are even more pronounced.

Oh and LOL at suggestion that this is a QQ cuz I can't make winning builds or to "git gud". Seriously that's hilarious. If it takes time to do a skill swap while you sit afk or whatever other mechanism, that's probably the penalty you have to take, it's called LIMITED for a reason.

Chocobo1 · Jun 25, 2009, 06:03 AM // 06:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenixtech

Starcraft balance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GW balance. In the old days, GW rewarded execution and to some extent strategy. An example of strategy would be say splitting mid match since going 8v8 doesn't work in your favor. These days, GW mostly rewards execution. Now, you could revert some of the GvG stuff to bring some sense of strategy back into the game at that level, or you can challenge the status-quo and try something like this limited "sidedeck" skill swaps. It could be limited in say only non-elites and only twice a match. It could be limited in other ways, but the bottom line is, having this type of thing could potentially improve the variety of play, especially at the RA/TA levels where the need for "sidedecks" are even more pronounced.

Oh and LOL at suggestion that this is a QQ cuz I can't make winning builds or to "git gud". Seriously that's hilarious. If it takes time to do a skill swap while you sit afk or whatever other mechanism, that's probably the penalty you have to take, it's called LIMITED for a reason.

This is really pointless, you refuse to accept that your idea is bad and needs reworking.

First off, please don't use Starcraft as a comparison. They are totally different games, and they have nothing in common. I tried to get to you by using a common Starcraft matchup but of course you ignore it.

Guild wars doesn't need a way to swap one imbalance for another, it needs mega skill changes which I really doubt is going to happen. I mean if your idea went through, so what? Person A swaps in skill 1 for skill 2, Player on the other team sees this and swaps in his counter to this skill. This continues until it can't go on (You didn't really give a definitive idea on what limits this).

Reverend Dr · Jun 25, 2009, 07:09 AM // 07:09

You've completely missed the point. I was already implying that hard counters were bad, but yes hard counters do exist, Divert/P&H for any type of hex build, more party healing and party defense for heavy pressure builds, more passive blocks for physical spikes. Allowing skill changes will turn whoever gets the first chance to change a huge advantage of out buildwarsing their opponent which will steamroll more chances to change.

I understand you are trying to promote balance. Well good for you, but the current system doesn't encourage balance. Balance is jack of all traits ace of none, run up against a gimmick (high-variance) where the teams are on equal level and the balance is almost always going to lose. Balance is run in ladder play as its safer, but in tourney play, not building to spec your opponent is putting yourself at a needless disadvantage. Want to promote balance talk about increasing the K value, because right now ladder play is meaningless, only tourney play matters.

Right now what you are proposing of "more skill slots" or "change skill slots" or "more players" is going against the very basic principles that this game was created around, it is exactly the same as proposing "raise the level cap" or "raise attribute cap."

Changing attributes is still done by some players, go into a match without all of your points spent, divide them after you see what the other team is running; but there are just increasingly few cases where changing attributes would have any effect.

I do wish that changing equipment was back in the game. It gave an unfair advantage to PvE characters back when PvP characters could only have 1 set of armor, but now that the whole equipment creation screen is in effect it doesn't matter. But again it would see little use. Gone are the days of warriors with healing signet, so swapping to the tactics helm won't boost anything. The most it would ever see are some swaps to and from superior and minor runes.

refer · Jun 25, 2009, 10:03 AM // 10:03

What!? HELL NO. The only similar concept I can imagine is a "side deck" concept from Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG but that probably doesn't' have a place in Guild Wars since you are allowed to change skills before a match begins anyways.

But to be honest, this seems like an evil plan that I would LOVE to see it in action just to see how it turns out. Not most forms of PvP, only special ones. Maybe it coudl be timer based... such as after ____ minutes a switch is offered, you can take it or not.

phoenixtech · Jun 26, 2009, 02:09 AM // 02:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobo1

This is really pointless, you refuse to accept that your idea is bad and needs reworking.

First off, please don't use Starcraft as a comparison. They are totally different games, and they have nothing in common. I tried to get to you by using a common Starcraft matchup but of course you ignore it.

Guild wars doesn't need a way to swap one imbalance for another, it needs mega skill changes which I really doubt is going to happen. I mean if your idea went through, so what? Person A swaps in skill 1 for skill 2, Player on the other team sees this and swaps in his counter to this skill. This continues until it can't go on (You didn't really give a definitive idea on what limits this).

How about we just agree to disagree and end this since you aren't even reading what I'm saying anyways, or else you'd see that I've been trying to rework the idea as we go. I mean if u had even READ the stuff you quoted you'd see that I already gave a "definitive idea on what limits this" by saying non-elites and only twice a game. I've address a WHOLE bunch of stuff that you promptly ignored, so you are right, this is pointless, you already had your mind set and said your piece, let's just agree to disagree and you can move on and not check on this post anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

I understand you are trying to promote balance. Well good for you, but the current system doesn't encourage balance. Balance is jack of all traits ace of none, run up against a gimmick (high-variance) where the teams are on equal level and the balance is almost always going to lose. Balance is run in ladder play as its safer, but in tourney play, not building to spec your opponent is putting yourself at a needless disadvantage. Want to promote balance talk about increasing the K value, because right now ladder play is meaningless, only tourney play matters.

Yeah, but there's more than one way to skin a cat in trying to promote game balance, which is why I suggested this general idea. Plus I think it would also promote variety in the sort of builds. Right now whenever the jack-of-all-trades loses to some gimmick, they cry for the nerf of that gimmick, alot of times they get it too.

Also the sad thing is, alot of the same people who comes in here and says I'm "QQing cuz I can't win" or some BS are the same people who are crying nerf to other builds in other threads.

Like I said before, this type of thing doesn't have to be tested rightaway at the 8v8 levels. You can test this type of thing out in RA/TA. I mean, if you can swap out your skills mid-game in RA (limited to twice a game excluding rez) and fully swap in-between games I think that'd be a great start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reverend Dr

Right now what you are proposing of "more skill slots" or "change skill slots" or "more players" is going against the very basic principles that this game was created around, it is exactly the same as proposing "raise the level cap" or "raise attribute cap."

Yea, but ANET has done alot of things that went against the very basic principles this game was created around ie: Skill over time-spent in PVE. (see consumables/titles/etc..) Although I can see how some of the changed are made with financial considerations that are necessary for a young company like ANET to survive.

Chocobo1 · Jun 26, 2009, 02:22 AM // 02:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenixtech

How about we just agree to disagree and end this since you aren't even reading what I'm saying anyways, or else you'd see that I've been trying to rework the idea as we go. I mean if u had even READ the stuff you quoted you'd see that I already gave a "definitive idea on what limits this" by saying non-elites and only twice a game. I've address a WHOLE bunch of stuff that you promptly ignored, so you are right, this is pointless, you already had your mind set and said your piece, let's just agree to disagree and you can move on and not check on this post anymore.

You have given several ideas, such as being able to have 3 skill bars to only changing 2 skills at a time. You never clearly choose one over the other, just desperately grasping to try save your idea by throwing up other ones on top of it. You can't save a bad idea by adding to it with more bad ideas.

I am really tired of you, you can't admit that your idea is flawed whereas everyone else here can see it? So are we all just terrible players, and you are the only one that knows what's best for Guild Wars?

Yeah.

phoenixtech · Jun 26, 2009, 03:05 AM // 03:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobo1

You have given several ideas, such as being able to have 3 skill bars to only changing 2 skills at a time. You never clearly choose one over the other, just desperately grasping to try save your idea by throwing up other ones on top of it. You can't save a bad idea by adding to it with more bad ideas.

I am really tired of you, you can't admit that your idea is flawed whereas everyone else here can see it? So are we all just terrible players, and you are the only one that knows what's best for Guild Wars?

Yeah.

LOL, man you are hilarious. It's call REFINEMENT btw, you know, proposing a general idea and refine it. I guess you've never heard of it, then again, you probably expect every thread here to be perfect off the initial post. Oh and where the hell did I say that everyone is terrible and I'm the best? I'm proposing we try out something.

You are tired of ME? funny man, I'm the one putting up with your immature shit, seriously, read the stick post on forum rules. You've already said you are against the idea, move on. Frankly, I think you have some sort of personal grudge against me or something, if that's the case just sort this out over PM.

Chocobo1 · Jun 26, 2009, 03:33 AM // 03:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenixtech

LOL, man you are hilarious. It's call REFINEMENT btw, you know, proposing a general idea and refine it. I guess you've never heard of it, then again, you probably expect every thread here to be perfect off the initial post. Oh and where the hell did I say that everyone is terrible and I'm the best? I'm proposing we try out something.

You are tired of ME? funny man, I'm the one putting up with your immature shit, seriously, read the stick post on forum rules. You've already said you are against the idea, move on. Frankly, I think you have some sort of personal grudge against me or something, if that's the case just sort this out over PM.

Settle down there kid :/.

Refinement of a good idea is fine. When everyone in this entire thread thinks this idea is horrible, and you continue to push it, claiming people are trolls and whatnot is not refinement.

You went from proposing a long time ago. Now you are just forcing it on us. It's not personal, it's just embarassing at this point. Don't PM me, I can already tell you will never accept what is staring at you right in the face.

This
Idea
Is
Bad.

phoenixtech · Jun 26, 2009, 03:43 AM // 03:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chocobo1

Settle down there kid :/.

Refinement of a good idea is fine. When everyone in this entire thread thinks this idea is horrible, and you continue to push it, claiming people are trolls and whatnot is not refinement.

You went from proposing a long time ago. Now you are just forcing it on us. It's not personal, it's just embarassing at this point. Don't PM me, I can already tell you will never accept what is staring at you right in the face.

This
Idea
Is
Bad.

LOL, you just won't stop will you. It's okay, trolls never admit to being trolls either. I'll just put you on my ignore list. Go ahead, I know you want to get that last word in. Show us all how to troll.

Dont Nerf The Perma · Jun 26, 2009, 07:11 PM // 19:11

you know it might be a better idea that if a team is losing badly one person can change their build in midgame to try to turn things around
(keep in mind they'd have to be losing REALLY REALLY badly)

Still Number One · Jun 26, 2009, 07:33 PM // 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dont Nerf The Perma

you know it might be a better idea that if a team is losing badly one person can change their build in midgame to try to turn things around
(keep in mind they'd have to be losing REALLY REALLY badly)

Or they could just lose the game, because they got outplayed and deserve to lose?

Dont Nerf The Perma · Jun 26, 2009, 07:37 PM // 19:37

yeah I guess ur right