Curse

Abedeus · Mar 31, 2008, 04:41 PM // 16:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by nembool

Anyways, agree with the OP, but buff Raven/Volfen instead!

,,- I think we should change our name from Hell's Satans... We don't want to go to hell after all, right?
- Let's be Devil's Pawns!!
- No, no, you see, it's about lowering the...
- You know what we should be? Christ Punchers!!
- ....''

You get it? It's about making PvE less about PvE-only skills and more about having SKILL. Every single game out there requires more skill than GW, even... I don't know, even Runescape.

Winterclaw · Mar 31, 2008, 04:55 PM // 16:55

Overall, I do agree that things have to be balanced around pvp. I don't mind when individual skills get nerfed, but when entire lines are reduced to uselessness, then I start having a problem. For example, let's say ANet decides fire magic is overpowered in PvP (random example) and nerfs the entire line so much that it is funtionally useless and no one really brings it anymore. For a pvper, no big deal as you can reroll. For the pvper, the classes and skills matter less than being effective and winning.

However for a pveer, making an entire line useless has some added consequences. Let's say I have a fire el with a 40/40 set, +energy set, and a staff with enchanting on it that I've been playing with in pve and pvp. Depending on how I got my items, I've just lost a little bit of money as now I have to salvage what I can and rebuy at least 3 items. So now I either have to farm collector items (takes time since loot nerf), hope some good golds drop for me (not likely) lay out ~15K for crafter items, not including the cost of one or two perfect salvage kits, or try to buy something off another player. Then I have to buy a new +1 hat in my new chosen element which can get expensive depending on the set it was in.

IMO there should be a rule of thumb that there should be at least 4 generally useable skills in every line for both pvpers and pveers to use. If there is a nerf that takes you below that number you need to buff up a few skills to make up for that.

Div · Mar 31, 2008, 05:05 PM // 17:05

For those of you who are too stupid to read the whole thing and can only read one line, what I'm saying is not to just change PvE-only skills because of their absolute power. It needs to be changed based on its relative power to shared skills. For example, if today shared skills allow you to beat an area with 100 points of efficiency, and PvE-only skills boost that efficiency rating up to 120, then when those shared skills get toned down to only 60 points of efficiency, we should not leave PvE-only skill efficiency at 120. We should still make them stronger than regular skills, but not twice as strong (say, to 80 points of efficiency).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etrik

Get over yourself, and if you don't want to be forced to run Ursan for farming, I suggest you find some friends who are capable of doing any area with a balanced build.

Unlike the general population here, I'm one of the least likely to need to rely on Ursan to get a group. If you don't believe me, that's fine, because frankly, that's what happens when you talk politics. There will always be a bunch of baseless, hypocritical people who disagree with ignorant claims.

You might ask how do I know you're bad? This:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etrik

And as a monk, there aren't that many PvE skills you can put on your bar - save maybe LoD and sometimes SS Rebirth Sig; but do you see me asking for a Brawling headbutt, or Drunken Stability, or any other PvE skill to be nerfed? No.

Seed of life? Selfless spirit? I am unstoppable? Those are much better examples of what a monk would take than trash like light of deldrimor and a rebirth sig.

Racthoh · Mar 31, 2008, 08:07 PM // 20:07

"You Move Like A Dwarf!" is probably the most balanced PvE only skill there is. It would be too strong in PvP, however it has a useful application in almost every single PvE area as an instant interrupt + damage skill. At the same time if I don't have it on my bar I don't feel like I'm running a severely gimped build when compared to a skill like "Save Yourselves!".

Ursan Blessing and "Save Yourselves!" are undoubtedly the two most absurd skills in the game. The former allows the average player to coast through any zone encountering only some difficulties in hard mode elite zones while the latter provides an unstoppable blanket of defense. However Ursan Blessing is in an entire league of its own. There is simply no other combination of shared and PvE only skills that can compared to the strength of that one skill. You can get pretty close, but at the end of the day everything else is still inferior to run.

upier · Mar 31, 2008, 08:43 PM // 20:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

For those of you who are too stupid to read the whole thing and can only read one line, what I'm saying is not to just change PvE-only skills because of their absolute power. It needs to be changed based on its relative power to shared skills. For example, if today shared skills allow you to beat an area with 100 points of efficiency, and PvE-only skills boost that efficiency rating up to 120, then when those shared skills get toned down to only 60 points of efficiency, we should not leave PvE-only skill efficiency at 120. We should still make them stronger than regular skills, but not twice as strong (say, to 80 points of efficiency).

There are some issues here:
1. You achieved the certain efficiency rating by running a specific build. You then achieved a greater rating by replacing a few skills with PvE skills.
The problem is that I don't see how we can define this rating outside of "greater". So your 100 vs 120 is completely misleading. We simply can not define how much better the PvE build is.
2. The second problem is when skills are changed. Unless we are running the SAME build - we can not compare the change in efficiency. And if we are running the same build - there is the risk of a different build being more efficient PLUS there is the issue of the PvE build consisting MOSTLY (the limit of 3 PvE only skills) out of shared skills and because of which it's efficiency ALSO drops (IF the efficiency of the shared build dropped). Which means that after a balance - we are back to square one - we can define what the most efficient shared build is - we can define what an a PvE build with greater efficiency is - but once again - we can not define how MUCH better it is nor can we define how the build compares to the build that was available before the balance.
So the skills are changed and we are stuck with two options:
1. Because we can not define exactly how much they need to be altered they would end up being underpowered.
2. Because we can not define exactly how much they need to be altered they would end up being overpowered.

Combine that with the fact that the player NEEDS to win AND that A.Net is lazy (as evidenced on numerous occasions and seen quite clearly in their inability to modify certain builds after a balance which left certain foes ineffective) - and we are left with one option that is better. And that option certainly doesn't include making skills underpowered (and that is made even worse by the fact that even skills that are overpowered in the traditional sense can be underpowered in PvE. Look at Winds for instance - the skill IS overpowered but not enough to warrant a slot - thus it is effectively underpowered).

Terraban · Mar 31, 2008, 08:52 PM // 20:52

The only problem I have with skill balances is the tendency to reduce strong skills to mediocre, and the hesitation to buff horrible skills into the below average stage.

Nerfing a build I use, but giving me new options and new builds - Fantastic.
Nerfing a build I use, but not buffing any other skills to a usable level - Fail.

Jenn · Mar 31, 2008, 08:54 PM // 20:54

I used to be okay with skill balances. Sometimes they were justified, sometimes they were &@#$*(ing ridiculous, but nonetheless, it was more "worth it." Now I'm just annoyed that aNet caters to a PvP crowd that hardly exists anymore. I've been in some hybrid alliances where, if it were not for the PvE crowd, everything else would have crumbled. No, I don't think PvE is the be all and end all of this game, but I am frustrated that at this point in the game the same small crowd is given more of an ear than the larger one.

Having said that, I realize that PvE-only skills were an attempt on aNet's part to sort of even out the disparity between PvE and PvP, but sometimes... I just miss the good old days. I'm not really trying to make an "I hate PvP" or "I hate aNet" post, but rather simply, I miss the pre-PvE-only skills, and I miss the days where a balance felt more "just."

Daring to touch on the topic of Ursan, I say this little bit: use it if you like. It has its time and place, and to those less able, or less patient people in PvE, this gives them a gateway to experience something they couldn't before. I'm tired of everyone complaining. Let everyone have their fun - I'm sorry if your stack of armbraces is worth half as much as it used to be, but to me, that is not as big as an expense as someone not experiencing this game in a new way. I am not too keen on Ursan, and I don't want to play with people who typically rely on that as their sole skill because it's their only key to success, but I realize there are others in the same boat as them that will empathize, and together, they will experience something new (like DoA, or hard mode).

Conclusion: my post really had no point, except reminiscing and being neutral on Ursan... /useful *cough*

phan · Mar 31, 2008, 09:00 PM // 21:00

Ghehe ;

they should remove ursan from the game ; its as simple as that .

Keithark · Mar 31, 2008, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Skills have to be balanced (nerfed) for PvP...that is true. But sometimes it makes it so that one certain class is not any good (or at least not nearly as good) as an alternate class and therefore that person can't get in a pug. That is what makes PvE people mad lots of the time. That's what made me mad when I created a Paragon, beat all 3 chapters pimped it out with armor shields and spears then got 3/4 builds that I ran on it nerfed to nothingness. The nerfs had to be made for PvP sake and I understand that because I hated the blockway meta that DA created and paraspikes and such. But 1 paragon on a team in PvE that is not a Motigon or a Ursan will have hard time fingind group. I only PvE anymore if I am looking for a specific thing for one of my toons to PvP with but I miss playing my Paragon in PvE, it was lots of fun.

Terraban · Mar 31, 2008, 09:35 PM // 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keithark

But 1 paragon on a team in PvE that is not a Motigon or a Ursan will have hard time fingind group.

I lawled

FoxBat · Mar 31, 2008, 09:45 PM // 21:45

I'm not really convinced Ursan is the best thing ever. But it is a very strong build that has on its side, extreme versatility, and requiring no brains to play. Much easier than fine-tuning a warrior build that might be 5% more efficient for a particular area.

Ursan has however degenerated pug play. A balanced group snoring through the game with a SY paragon is infinitely better gameplay than 5-6 bears running amok, but that's all you can find in the elite areas. Because that skill succeeds even when players fail badly at coordination. It needs a serious hit for pugging to recover.

As to your larger point, a bunch of the random PvP buffs (like turret rangers, or necro sacs) seem to benefit PvE even more, so I don't see an overall decline of shared skill power and effectiveness (well, unless you're a paragon). But I'll take any rational excuse to bring some semblance of balance to these PvE skills.

Div · Mar 31, 2008, 10:19 PM // 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by upier

There are some issues here:
1. You achieved the certain efficiency rating by running a specific build. You then achieved a greater rating by replacing a few skills with PvE skills.
The problem is that I don't see how we can define this rating outside of "greater". So your 100 vs 120 is completely misleading. We simply can not define how much better the PvE build is.

To simplify, efficiency can be calculated based on goal completion time. I don't see how it's misleading.

Quote:

Combine that with the fact that the player NEEDS to win

More like, the bad players are crying that they suck and can't beat NM EoTN, so Anet has to give them huge handicap skills that allow completely horrible players to finish it. Personally, I am much more fond of the first time I fought through the droks run zones. It was normal mode, and even then it still took 4 hours. I struggled through it, often dying, but looking back, it was awesome that I beat it. Just a few days ago, I breezed through the zones again, vanquishing the whole thing in HM in 2 hours with overpowered PvE skills. If you're good or dedicated enough, you'll win regardless. Unfortunately, 99% of the player base don't care to be good; they just want the job done and will cry if they don't get it done.

You make it sound like without PvE-only skills, it's impossible to win. But it's not. Just ask all the people who got vanquishers before EoTN and before SY became the biggest thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxBat

As to your larger point, a bunch of the random PvP buffs (like turret rangers, or necro sacs) seem to benefit PvE even more, so I don't see an overall decline of shared skill power and effectiveness (well, unless you're a paragon). But I'll take any rational excuse to bring some semblance of balance to these PvE skills.

I agree completely that there is no overall decline of shared skill power and effectiveness. I think I should've rephrased it better: there is a decline in the best skills possible. Consider a basketball team. I will use 1-9 as their skill level, with 9 being highest. The players before had skills levels of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The players now have skill levels 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7. The average skill level hasn't decreased (it's still 5), but if you can only take the top 5 players at any given time, the first set of players would be stronger (average 7 versus average 5.8).

FoxBat · Mar 31, 2008, 10:52 PM // 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

I agree completely that there is no overall decline of shared skill power and effectiveness. I think I should've rephrased it better: there is a decline in the best skills possible.

That's a good point, but what I mean is that some of these random buffs may be pushing these skills to an 8 or so in PvE. For example, weakness was always one of the best melee shutdowns in the game, since mobs get their big domage from base damage, generally suck at condition removal, and don't know how to spread out. 1e Enfeebling blood just makes it moreso and splashable on non-necros.

Also, some skills are irrelevant in PvP but are an 8 or 9 in PvE due to synergy with PvE skills. (Hello Focused Anger/Dragon Slash...)

You have a good point on how the game should be ideally balanced for PvE/PvP. But the latest adjustments show an attitude of "let's balance for PvP while not significantly destroying popular PvE builds." Examples: splinter buff with barrage nerf, weakness pushed to one energy. So even if PvP is approaching all 5s, PvE can still randomly see things shot up to 7 or 8, while 10 is remaining untouched. And it's questionable whether we want to knock shared skills down to say 3 in PvP just so they can be 5 in PvE.

Like I said, I think it's good if some of the most extreme stupidities get hammered down, but trying to achieve actual balance in PvE at this point isn't really possible, even if PvP became perfectly balanced and all PvE skills were deleted. Nice even 5s in PvP don't necessarily equate to such in PvE, we'll still have things like Broadhead + Epidemic > entire mesmer class.

Terraban · Mar 31, 2008, 10:56 PM // 22:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

I agree completely that there is no overall decline of shared skill power and effectiveness. I think I should've rephrased it better: there is a decline in the best skills possible. Consider a basketball team. I will use 1-9 as their skill level, with 9 being highest. The players before had skills levels of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The players now have skill levels 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7. The average skill level hasn't decreased (it's still 5), but if you can only take the top 5 players at any given time, the first set of players would be stronger (average 7 versus average 5.8).

The is the problem with Guild Wars balancing of skills.

We have:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 8, 9 , 9 ,9

Then a skill balance comes out, an we have:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 7, 8

Edit: PvE skills aren't any more balanced, most of them are horrible, and a few are extremely overpowered.

Winterclaw · Mar 31, 2008, 11:54 PM // 23:54

Quote:

Personally, I am much more fond of the first time I fought through the droks run zones.

Yeah, we need at least 1-2 THK difficulty missions in every game.

Yuhe Ji · Apr 01, 2008, 12:11 AM // 00:11

I don't have a problem with all the nerfs out there. Some of them were obviously coming, such as Rodgort's Invocation with the 5 sec recharge and Ancestor's Rage. I just hate it when they nerf a skill to the point where it can't be used at all. WY! and Incoming! are examples. They just aren't useful anymore in PvE anymore. RI and Ancestor's Rage are still widely used though. They can serve their same purpose, maybe a little less efficiently, but they still work.

Tyla · Apr 01, 2008, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etrik

Let PvE skills remain overpowered. That's why they were implemented in the first place, so we can have slightly overpowered skills to play with, that don't ruin PvP.

And as a monk, there aren't that many PvE skills you can put on your bar - save maybe LoD and sometimes SS Rebirth Sig; but do you see me asking for a Brawling headbutt, or Drunken Stability, or any other PvE skill to be nerfed? No.

So what if people like farming with Ursan? I, and I am quite sure many others, still prefer going out with 7 other people, running a fun and balanced build, and having a grand ol' time. Even if I could make my heroes run Ursan, I'd still H/H in HM with balanced builds, simply because it's more fun for me.

Asking for an Ursan nerf is like asking for a collision detection nerf.

Oh, woe is me, people run a bonder, 2 healers, a tank, and 4 nukers! That's not fun, and it's overpowered!!!1one

Get over yourself, and if you don't want to be forced to run Ursan for farming, I suggest you find some friends who are capable of doing any area with a balanced build.

Ursan isn't only used for farming. It's used for EVERYTHING by the majority of the PvE'ers.

Divine is probably using the strongest argument against Ursan, mainly. He's hit the nail on the head.

jonnieboi05 · Apr 01, 2008, 06:24 AM // 06:24

well, after reading the entire thread i still and do agree that save yourselves and "finish him" and you move like a dwarf are rather TOO useful. meh... i am happy with the way things are with the bar i run so it's ok to me. ^^

upier · Apr 01, 2008, 07:01 AM // 07:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

To simplify, efficiency can be calculated based on goal completion time. I don't see how it's misleading.

Define the goal here. I mean is that completing:
1. an area
2. the whole game
3. random selection of areas
4...?

How about if the party Charges though the area? Taking down just the foes that need to be taken down to reach the minimum requirements to achieve the certain goal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

More like, the bad players are crying that they suck and can't beat NM EoTN, so Anet has to give them huge handicap skills that allow completely horrible players to finish it. Personally, I am much more fond of the first time I fought through the droks run zones. It was normal mode, and even then it still took 4 hours. I struggled through it, often dying, but looking back, it was awesome that I beat it. Just a few days ago, I breezed through the zones again, vanquishing the whole thing in HM in 2 hours with overpowered PvE skills. If you're good or dedicated enough, you'll win regardless. Unfortunately, 99% of the player base don't care to be good; they just want the job done and will cry if they don't get it done.

You make it sound like without PvE-only skills, it's impossible to win. But it's not. Just ask all the people who got vanquishers before EoTN and before SY became the biggest thing.

And the problem with that is ...?
A person currently has the option to:
1. become really good
2. be dedicated
3. use a crutch to complete an area.
Each person decides how they want to play the game themselves. So why would we want to remove options and make something doable only in a specific way? To boost your e-peen?
Because that's exactly how it sounds now. You seem to believe that others completing something in PvE diminishes your achievement.
It doesn't.
PvE isn't competitive.

Zahr Dalsk · Apr 01, 2008, 07:04 AM // 07:04

I entered this thread and abruptly realized I don't currently care about skill balances, or feel any resentment towards PvPers.

Maybe it's because I've lately stepped back into my harangue-the-masses, incite-political/ethical/religious-debate-in-random-towns personality with much less focus on actual playing beyond wandering around beating up RA scrubs or leeching off of SS/LB teams. Took long enough, anyhow, but I feel better for it, because now I can look at the skill changes and laugh properly.

So I say unto ye, quit thy whining, for it is but PvE, and he who cannot manage PvE, doth truly suck at this game.