Curse

Pauli · Dec 13, 2010, 11:26 AM // 11:26

Balancing specific skills, or a bunch of related skills, is an ongoing process. You speak from a player's point of view and that's perfectly valid. However, developers have a different point of view. Sometimes they're just as biased, but sometimes they're much less. I guess you could always discuss each and every skill update until GW3 comes out. The best possible way remains the same: Constructive suggestions. It's only natural for people to disagree about skill balance, is it not?

urania · Dec 13, 2010, 11:34 AM // 11:34

doing something wrong and refusing to admit it and hence not improving also seems to be an ongoing process frequently seen with some of Anet. i suppose your goal isnt really to make things be changed or improved, but just to make yourself feel good about making walls of text that wont ever be read by those that they're addressed at.

Jenn · Dec 14, 2010, 11:29 PM // 23:29

Deleted half the thread...

1) Don't post screen shots with other peoples' names in it.
2) Threads degenerate with back and forth bickering between 2 people - don't do it - no one else cares. Take it to PMs if you do.

Pauli · Dec 14, 2010, 11:52 PM // 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

doing something wrong and refusing to admit it and hence not improving also seems to be an ongoing process frequently seen with some of Anet. i suppose your goal isnt really to make things be changed or improved, but just to make yourself feel good about making walls of text that wont ever be read by those that they're addressed at.

It's natural to disagree with various changes made to the game. While some might see some changes as an improvement others might see it as the opposite. Sometimes you can't get two people to agree about a said topic. I'll be the bigger person and set your last comment aside.

Thank you, once more, for the moderation. The thread had been, thankfully, restored once more to it's constructive state.

Corporeal Ghost · Dec 15, 2010, 06:02 AM // 06:02

All at Pauli's last post to me unless specified otherwise.

Not sure what to tell you without making this entirely circular. First, physical pressure is viable very often in codex because of both the increased value of autoattacks and the way that it plays through hate so well as long as said hate doesn't hit critical mass. This means it's almost always the best build unless the pool is constructed in such a way that the other teams will counter it before playing against it (which is pretty easy to read).

Second, you're not multi-weaponing for bad skills, ever. You're multi-weaponing to take advantage of the relatively more-powerful auto-attack damage without sacrificing the utility you need to kill things. This means your off-weapon attacks are almost always those that function at or near capacity with zero (or very low) spec--interrupts, deep wounds, knockdowns, Wild Throw, DShot. Very occasionally, there is a bar that wants two actual full-spec weapon attributes--Enraged Smash is all that comes to mind)--but the power level returns you get on this investment are through the roof. In your "example", only DChop, Savage Slash, and Fierce Blow fit this category, but there isn't enough information to tell you which of these are actually making your bar.

Eles without energy are actually quite powerful. People should play them more, but they don't understand how to conceptually.

Support is at least as much about play decisions as about skill choices. But even throwing out the stuff that can be done by everyone--bodyblocking, adding damage intelligently, covering deep wound--it's really not that hard to find some relevant offensive utility. You need to dig into the "bad" skills that most people don't even consider, but some of which are actually awesome. Harrier's Grasp is one we like to run on our monks, which I've never seen anyone else play at all, monk or no. The amount of skills that augment melee physicals is pretty large: snares, interrupts, knockdowns, cover conditions, hex removal, condi removal, speed buffs, enchantment removal, random stuff like Rigor Mortis or Wild Throw, about 50% of Domination Magic. Obviously it's not all relevant in every pool, but it's pretty easy to gage when you want to skip Rigor or Shatter Enchantment.

What all of this essentially boils down to is your whole team has to understand what drives physical pressure, but that if your team does, it is almost always the best build, discounting the occasional. Melee gains more advantages than disadvantages in most limited skill pools, and there isn't any reason not to exploit that.

Regarding your examples:

If there isn't enough condition removal and cripple is available, you actually want triple melee. Snare trains are the biggest non-single-skill problem with the format right now. The natural counters to them are very limited (AoE melee hate, some prots/weapons), so it's not uncommon to see zero of these in the pool.

Regarding the wards...if you can't shut them off or kill through them (Foes can be neutralized via your own snares and knockdowns), there isn't really a reason to engage in that area. It's not like you're losing ground to give them morale or put your bodyguard in danger. I would guess this produces a lot of draws until the less-disciplined (or perhaps less-stubborn) team either gives up or changes build, but I've never actually played against double wards.

Regarding tactical play:

Most people that have played GvG in both the modern era and the days of yore would tell you that it became less tactical as the average game length went up. Individual tactics have far less impact on a game. Overarching strategy (IE, play for 28 v. attempt to wipe them) has become perhaps more important (arguable), but individual plays do almost nothing unless they precipitate a wipe or allow for minutes of unobstructed lord damage.

And the difference that most I've talked to can agree on is skill power. The increased power of both offense and defense have de-emphasized the importance of entire categories of tactical decisions. For example, it's now much less relevant who you're building adrenaline on because everyone has warrior armor levels and is 5 monk energy away from full life. Shutdown, by its nature tactical, is practically non-existent now, both because of the increased need for damage to power through the armor and because defenses are less based on big skills like Aegis and Blinding Surge and more based on stances, high armor, and healing.

There's also a factor that's somewhat unique to codex. When overall skillbar power gets low enough, but high-power skills retain the same power level, the value of shutdown increases exponentially. That is, if you Diversion a full-powered monk's Word of Healing, he still has Patient Spirit and Guardian and whatnot to keep people alive. If you Diversion a codex monk's Word of Healing, he's often got something like Words of Comfort and Shield Guardian left, which you can just power through. The identification of and execution against critical skills is something most would deem tactical, and was a defining characteristic of the better-liked GvG metagames (and is not necessarily limited to shutdown). It's no longer prominent outside of some codex pools.

Tacticality is not game length-based, though there is arguably some minimum length for a match to be "tactical". It's more about how much individual decisions matter, and there are more, both quantity and quality (in terms of impact), decisions when skill power is lower, as the relative value of non-skill actions goes up.

Regarding population:

I don't think there are enough people to segment the population. The guys you get on quest days are already getting matched up with weaker players (the other quest-day guys) and they aren't sticking around beyond quest days. Even if they were, however, they're still not getting out of your lowest league, both because of a lack of drive (they're motivated by prizes, not wins or league stats) and because they presumably don't like codex that much (or they'd be there without bribery). This leaves the few people that do enjoy codex in an even worse spot where they can only play against each other, and will likely give up entirely before the new blood can catch up.

To reiterate, I think a matchup system is, in the abstract, not only a good idea but necessary to have a game with a learning curve this steep survive. The problem is it requires a critical mass of players at each level to function. If people at any level, top or bottom, are not getting enough matches, they will simply stop playing, and this creates a self-perpetuating void. If the bottom dies out, no new blood is introduced and eventually enough at the top lose interest for the format to die entirely. If the top dies out, anyone who is promoted from the bottom can't find matches and is basically forced to quit (or smurf/guest, as you so often see in high-level GvG, but which isn't really available in an account-based league system).

Pauli · Dec 15, 2010, 10:09 AM // 10:09

I'll try to comment point by point:

- Urania was providing an example of a codex in which there were strong hexes and almost no way to handle them. In such a codex it could be a problem to get melees to work well. Although I haven't been at CA lately, I remember the times before and you're right. It's almost always viable to bring at least 1 melee for the same reasons you were posting.

- I used the example to show you the way it usually is. In way too many cases there's only one decent weapon attribute for the Warrior, if any. It's possible to spec just for 1-2 skills from another weapon, which are usually very bad ones, but nobody said it's the best way. In so many codex setups I've seen there were other physical damage alternatives which were better than the Warrior. Weapon switching has it's disadvantages, and switching between 2 weapon sets isn't difficult.

- Eles are powerful, and therefore they have disadvantages like long casting times, energy issues (no attunement usually, and more) and low armor, generally. At CA the question isn't "what's powerful?". The question is: "What's the best considering the specific codex setup?". More often than not there's no attunement and at least a few Mesmer rupts. In other words, the Ele's vulnerabilities. Is it really the best way to swim against the river's current or is it best to learn how to use the current to your favor? The answer is obvious.

- Support, like everything else, depends on the codex setup, which is what I was saying all along. If there are very powerful anti melee hexes which you can't (or almost can't) remove, your melees are going to be far less viable. Some codex setups might make it extremely hard to support even 1 melee, or more than one melee. It's not about player skill, but about the availability of the relevant ways to deal with a said threat (like anti melee hexes). Of course you need to use some of the "bad" skills, but that doesn't instantly turn every one of them into a viable option.

- Regarding the examples: The first one lacks a great deal of info to say if a third melee would actually even have a nearly decent bar, and other details as well. The second example ignores the fact that it's more than possible that non melee damage dealers could have had a decent or even nice codex setup that day. Melee isn't always the best way.

- Regarding tactical play: It could be less tactical but it still is more tactical than extremely short fights. Spikes have been repeatedly nerfed for that reason, among others. In many cases it's, more or less, the way it's been before with healing. You need more than 5 energy, and Infuse used to be a life saver against spikes in the past (during some part of the past). When it comes to GvG, the shutdown part is right, but at CA it matters greatly quite often, and you provided an excellent example.

- Regarding population: I totally disagree. First of all, the fact they were motivated by reward doesn't imply they can't be motivated in other ways. My AB examples prove that beyond doubt. Secondly, when you see an empty (or nearly empty) American District at the busy hours, you don't want to spend all that long time preparing well just to face 1-2 teams (I've seen 1 too often when I last played) which might not even be decent. Concluding the codex is unpopular *only* because of the format's design, especially with the general PvP population issues, is a good way to miss other important reasons. And last, but not least, there is the reward: Symbol.

You know, as well as I do, that people leech trimmed capes. People also try to get titles in illegitimate ways. What's better than having something similar with a different context (the Symbol)? In addition, the Symbol is per account, so people wouldn't be able to tell you it's leeching. Symbols also last 2 months (unless they're regained) so it really means something. In the worst case, if there aren't enough people at a said moment, they're always given the option to face teams of different leagues.

One last detail you probably miss is CA's design. Unlike GvG and HA it requires only 4 people and the objectives are usually very simple compared to the heavier formats mentioned. In addition, if you know you're going to face teams of the same level, more or less, it's a lot more motivating. On top of it all, at the lower league you know they'll have fixed bars like you so the ground will be equal from that aspect. If the League System is introduced it's going to be very easy to PUG compared to the way it's now. Symbols mean so much more than titles.

Missing HB · Dec 15, 2010, 04:24 PM // 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pauli

One last detail you probably miss is CA's design. Unlike GvG and HA it requires only 4 people and the objectives are usually very simple compared to the heavier formats mentioned. In addition, if you know you're going to face teams of the same level, more or less, it's a lot more motivating. On top of it all, at the lower league you know they'll have fixed bars like you so the ground will be equal from that aspect. If the League System is introduced it's going to be very easy to PUG compared to the way it's now. Symbols mean so much more than titles.

I agree but the problem once again with league system would be to have a lot of players for every league . 4 teams per league would be ridiculous , but it still would involve 48 players for CA , which is not easy to get . Then , my point , maybe if players were allowed to use 3 of all those henchs who were implemented , it would make a huge number of teams playing , and anyone would be able to play at any hour. As well , testing builds would be much easier ...

Pauli · Dec 15, 2010, 07:33 PM // 19:33

First of all I offered a possibility of fighting higher league teams if that specific team agrees. Secondly, your suggestion is very interesting but after thinking of it for a while I understood it's not simple. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I'm saying that it depends on the Heroes' AI. If, for example, they can interrupt faster than human beings we're going to have a problem. However, if playing with heroes isn't going to be better than playing with decent (or better) players it might be a problem. It depends, really. I've little experience with Heroes when it comes to PvP, and I haven't been PvEing in the last years. PvE isn't appealing for me anymore. I wish I had more time to play (PvP only), though.

Missing HB · Dec 16, 2010, 11:24 AM // 11:24

Yes i know there will be some issues , but the only aim is to make a lot of people play the arena , and i doubt there is a best solution or even an other solution for it ....

Vazze · Dec 16, 2010, 08:54 PM // 20:54

I like CA but it is too late to fix it. Your idea of making it GW2 style is not a CA fix, it is a marketing/testing tool for GW2 and it will be treated like that. Last year CA managed to bring back a lot lot of "dormant accounts" and amass a huge pve crowd as well only to die completely in a matter of weeks. Those who left are not going to fall for it again, no matter what they are promised.

I will quote Ghost here because many, including me said it before and it is important:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporeal Ghost

To reiterate, I think a matchup system is, in the abstract, not only a good idea but necessary to have a game with a learning curve this steep survive. The problem is it requires a critical mass of players at each level to function. If people at any level, top or bottom, are not getting enough matches, they will simply stop playing, and this creates a self-perpetuating void. If the bottom dies out, no new blood is introduced and eventually enough at the top lose interest for the format to die entirely.

Pauli · Dec 16, 2010, 09:26 PM // 21:26

@ Missing HB

If you know which issues might be with heroes, please share your knowledge with us. My relevant knowledge is outdated, like I already said.

@ Vazze

My suggestions were made to improve this format, even though it might change it dramatically. There are people playing formats like AB(/FA/JQ/RA) were totally dead, which means that there is some potential. Most of those players there won't GvG or HA on a regular account (most likely not at all) because their chance to win there is slim at best. The League System is supposed to solve this problem. The other suggestions might help, even though they might change CA drastically, but it might be for the best. I'm not sure, but we can't take a glimpse into the future. I'd want to, if it was actually possible.

Missing HB · Dec 18, 2010, 08:55 AM // 08:55

I now realized that using henchs would be stupid because they got fixed bars , and i guess it would be hard to implement a code to make them a build every time..

Anyway, the only problem on real fight with heroes is that winners usually might be human monk with heroes. People who did play HB know how ward it was to beat monk + 3 meta heroes on 4v4 . So now , if you consider that it will be shit bars most of times ( healer ones ), i think that it might be the case once again. So well , the point then would be to play on HB maps to avoid this ...However , that's the only problem , rupting and stuff on hero isn't really that annoying ( trust me , i've tried maybe everything in HB , and rupting on a hero is nothing , people were just mad in HA because they had healparty or heats rupted...)

But well , then it would still be easier and more people would like to just bring back HB and TA , maybe with both having codex rules ....

Pauli · Dec 18, 2010, 09:25 AM // 09:25

It might be different this time because there won't be meta bars so often, or at all. Codex rules already turn them to CA, except the HB part. Perhaps you could allow 2 heroes at most, just like you had a hero limit in other formats (excluding HB, of course). Heroes would be a must, in this case, because their bars could be changed, unlike Henchmen. It wouldn't be similar for HB because the maps are different and because it's possible to face teams with 4 players, unlike HB.

In short: I believe the best solution would be, at least for the time being, to allow two Heroes per team.

Missing HB · Dec 18, 2010, 11:23 AM // 11:23

Unfortunately , if you try to argue with others , many will just say " gah , heroes are dumb" or " it sucked in HA in past , no more that " . They aren't getting that the aim is to make a lot of people come and play . As well , concerning players mentality , i think 3 heroes for this format woudn't be a pain.

Pauli · Dec 18, 2010, 07:20 PM // 19:20

In my opinion 2 (at most) is the best way to go. Currently you could find around 2-3 teams on a non quest day, which equals to 12 players. With 2 heroes in each team the number of teams can even become 6. Six teams isn't so bad at all. If the League System is going to make it, it's going to be even more newbe friendly (at the lowest league) because the bars are going to be fixed. Get 8 players and you can have 4 teams. Get 12 players and you may even have 6 teams going on.

I believe two Heroes per team (at most) is the best way to go because you have to cooperate with another person. Once you both have a positive experience you'll want to come another day, even just to have fun together. This incentive, in itself, has great potential (to promote the format).

Missing HB · Dec 19, 2010, 11:07 AM // 11:07

Anyway , things need to be changed . Now i just went codex , there is exactly noone apart of syncing accounts ( [Wowa] and people from [FpO], but you probably know it yet ) . I don't really care in fact , since it's impossible to play the arena at this hour anyway , but when you see those guy flaming with their r8-9 codex title on , really...

I hope anet will decide to do at least SOMETHING even little except if their aim on long run is to have very low amount of players in PvP .

Pauli · Dec 19, 2010, 11:39 AM // 11:39

I really wish it wasn't so, but there are many who feel the same about this topic, or another one. The greatest problems, right now, are development resources and priorities. Development resources will be spent when this suggestion is ready, if it's good enough (compared to the required resources), and when the time is right. For example, you couldn't turn it into a GW2 style arena when GW2's professions aren't all ready themselves. Some are more ready than others, of course, but they must all be ready. Once they're ready they need to be balanced. In short: There's a long way to go. Patience is the key.

urania · Dec 19, 2010, 06:05 PM // 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pauli

Currently you could find around 2-3 teams on a non quest day, which equals to 12 players.

mustve been right after a codex quest ended.

Pauli · Dec 19, 2010, 06:52 PM // 18:52

I wasn't there lately, like I said before, but why would it change so much? It's been like 3 weeks (I can't remember exactly) since I last played. I was talking about the 11:00 GMT-8 codex, which is about 19:00 GMT for Europeans. The bottom line is that the Heroes' suggestion could help, as well as the League System. Development schedule issues were already mentioned in my last post.

Missing HB · Jan 09, 2011, 11:07 AM // 11:07

Upon 10 times i went to codex arena since yesterday , i found exactly 0 players upon al ldistricts , 0. I know it's RA week end , but i doubt that there were 0 players in Hero Battles (And Team Arenas, but that's obvious) on those week ends ...
Will we ever get an explaination about this arena , which is by far less populated than ascalon academy ???