Curse

Div · May 31, 2009, 08:39 AM // 08:39

The problem with mind blast is AoR. Even after MB got buffed, it was still not nearly as popular. The fact that you get enough healing to output most stuff they send at you on the split and the little bit of extra energy made it a really powerful template. Plus it's a good cover for attunement.

Greedy Gus · May 31, 2009, 10:00 AM // 10:00

Well mindblaster macro doesn't strike me as much of a template need, rather than the general player ability everyone should have. They don't really go above and beyond the general split ideas of 'dont get powerplayed too hard, try to run around the map to gain some separation and find some place where you can push your damage easiest'. Compared to some other split characters that I would consider healthier, their macro decisions are simplified a lot (having so many tools readily available, and barely worried about any specific character matchups in their movement).

It may be that when confronted by actual counter-ish threats they have to be a lot more careful, but apparently those aren't run in the highest levels due to drop in overall build strength (or guilds getting into the single elims these days aren't capable of creatively changing from 'set' strongest builds).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

I'm actually kinda surprised that the Fire Eles were so under-represented in the top 16 overall. With the number of split maps available I'd expect more of them. This MAT was actually interesting to watch for once, and I'm interested to see how things start to settle once people get a better grip on the matchups and what tools are needed.

Agreed there, it seemed to stick out like a sore thumb that fire eles were one of the previously strongest templates that didn't get touched by the latest update, and the new map pool would be quite favorable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

The most surprising thing to me was the lack of many single Fire Ele builds. In every build that wasn't going all-in on a split, it seemed like one of the Fire Eles was inevitably stuck next to a heal Monk that shut him down hard. Perhaps it's necessary simply to keep that Monk out of the base, but barring that it is hard for me to understand why it was better than another character in that slot.

I was just asking about this a week or two ago, and the only response someone could muster was 'what else would you run with one?' That logic seems particularly easy to drop since people began to get comfortable losing warriors for extra hex/midline characters in the last week (so many strong templates popping up to use the multiple ranger, necro, & mesmer elites). I mean there isn't any particular synergy between the mindblast guys that I can tell, so they should be able to stand on their own whether you have 3, 2, or 1 slot to fill.

Neo-LD · May 31, 2009, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

The metagame is healthier right now than it has been in well over a year.

Disagreed completely. The health of a metagame is defined by the desirability of the builds/tactics used within the metagame, NOT by the number of different builds/tactics that happen to inhabit it. Desirability, as I have pointed out an uncountable number of times, is defined as "supporting of a genuinely competitive metagame with meaningful results." The central characteristic of a desirable mechanic is a high skill:reward ratio enabling the best players and teams to distinguish themselves from the rif-raff. This is the reason I have made "reward player skill" case so consistently and often.

Based on yesterday's monthly, the game is in shambles. Quite literally the worst, most unhealthy cesspool of a metagame that Guild Wars has ever seen. The dominant builds (hexes and fire) do not reward player skill at all. In pitched battles they lead to button mash fests where teams simply spam their hexes/removals/nukes/heals as fast as possible. Consequently the battle is decided more by luck and/or some minute difference in skillbars than by any intelligent plays made by the competitors. The struggle between melee damage, prots, active midline mitigations, and shutdowns has always been the most rewarding, meaningful, skillful, fun, desirable part of this game. And in yesterday's monthly, it was practically absent. Disgusting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

is suspiciously like saying "there should be one build that, played well, can beat every other build".

There should be (in fact there should be several), and the fact that you don't think so is precisely the reason why you end up with such errant arguments and erroneous conclusions. "Can" is the critical word here. A good, desirable build should not automatically win against any build, instead, it should merely enable the possibility. The actual result should be almost completely dependent on the playing that goes on inside the match, rather than some glorified R/P/S taking place beforehand.

This is the main reason why Distortion-MBlast eles are undesirable. You can't beat them unless you take very specific counter skills which are not useful against hardly anything else. This leads directly to pre-match R/P/S (ATs) or dumb luck (ladder) influencing the outcome of a battle far more than the actual playing that goes on inside the game, which is completely, utterly, terribly undesirable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

its brain-dead button mash on recharge with overly good result -just like ltr spike and hexways - reason enough to tone it down.

Precisely, exactly, agreed, this, QFT, what she said.

This is the other reason why Distorion-MBlast eles are undesirable. They do not reward player skill hardly at all. There is some reward for split-awareness-macro (same as for all splitting characters) and there is some reward for well timed Meteors. But thats it. After that, its just a button mash bar that doesn't have to think about anything except pressing the skills in the right order, one after the other. Its very obvious how this damage-delivery-engine is completely undesirable as compared to a warrior, which has to worry about micro such as stancing, positioning, adrenaline storing, and interrupt/bulls placement. Back to the MBlast bar, it even goes so far as to make irrelevant many of the tactics previously required for splitting. As it is nearly untouchable unless you have direct counters, you can stay in base for far longer than you normally should have, and then just Distortion your way out of a situation in which you definitely deserved to die, until one of your monks Sprints over and saves you.

scruffy · May 31, 2009, 06:23 PM // 18:23

fire eles are better in pairs because 2 fire eles does more damage than 1 fire ele and some other character who doesn't do as much damage and isnt as mobile and cant stay alive as well

to the guy posting above me: all you need to deal with mind blast eles effectively is add cripshot to your ranger instead of melshot and add warriors cunning to your warrior, thats only 2 skills in the entire build and they can also be used for other things incase the other team isnt using fire eles.

Div · May 31, 2009, 07:16 PM // 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

The dominant builds (hexes and fire) do not reward player skill at all.

Let's compare that to the "dominant builds" that made finals in the past year and a half:
Sinsplit
Ineptitude-way
Dervspike
Rawrspike
A/P spike
W/A spike
Signet mes buff builds (qE's derv train or rawr's 6 monks or primal+lingering easymode)
Lordcamp builds

Here and there you'll see some 2 ranger builds, but for the most part I'd say hexes and fire rewards player skill in terms of positioning, collapses, etc. than the previous builds I mentioned.

Quote:

In pitched battles they lead to button mash fests where teams simply spam their hexes/removals/nukes/heals as fast as possible. Consequently the battle is decided more by luck and/or some minute difference in skillbars than by any intelligent plays made by the competitors.

So is spamming ineptitude & friends at VoD considered more intelligent play? How about hitting your spike skills on 2 or 1 and going defensive for the rest of the match? While I agree that hexes/fire isn't the pinnacle of intelligent play, you still get a lot more when you watch for large groups of people and smart removals than if you spam it randomly. Not to mention the split build isn't just running around aimlessly.

Quote:

The struggle between melee damage, prots, active midline mitigations, and shutdowns has always been the most rewarding, meaningful, skillful, fun, desirable part of this game.

It really depends on your definition. What it sounds like is that you think of skillful and fun as two 8v8 pressure teams going against each other. When was the last time we saw that? For the past year, it's mostly been 8v8 spike, and when we can at least move to split template, I'd say that's an upgrade to the skill level of the game.

Ensign · May 31, 2009, 07:16 PM // 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

Indeed, a VoR mesmer isnt any less brain-dead than MB, neither is LC necro, but hexes/hexstacking were always like that anyway. Comparing them to those templates makes more sense too, I guess, yet I can't resist but compare it to how things used to be and sigh at some of certain templates.

Well we have a convergence of several different problems that have kinda meta-stabilized at the point we're at now. The skill set has grown increasingly one-dimensional over time; the buffs and nerfs have generally removed variety instead of adding it. There's also been a big shift away from different forms of soft counters (interrupts, knockdowns, skill disable, energy denial) to focus entirely upon interrupts; there's also been a trend towards very strong counters to those soft counters.

Then we have problems with how the naturally strong and well designed classes have started to go nuts with power creep (Monks, Warriors); Monks have gained a ton of power, and Warriors have creeped up incrementally but have moreso benefitted from systematic elimination of the tools that deal with them. Poorly designed classes (most casters) have generally gotten smashed by the power creep, and at this point are relying upon insane skills or insane combinations (Lingering Curse, Weaken Knees, VoR, Mind Blast / Attunement / Aura) to compete with Warriors and Monks. There really isn't room for flexible, tactical characters in the game, because the differences in skill power are so stark, and because you really need to hammer on the one or two crazy things a class can do to make yourself felt at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by urania

Moreover, I am speaking from a TA perspective and TA is a place where builds such as hex overload and MB (in some build setups, at least) prove to be especially degenerated and brain-dead.

TA is always going to be more vulnerable to this. There's essentially no room for macro tactics like forcing the fight somewhere else, splitting resources, etc, like there have been in GvG at various points in the past that let you re-cast an unfavorable matchup. Either you have the tools or you die in TA for the most part; and with only 4 characters, it's a whole lot harder to fit in the tools.

Especially when the balance shifts from strong tools to ridiculous threats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

The problem with mind blast is AoR. Even after MB got buffed, it was still not nearly as popular. The fact that you get enough healing to output most stuff they send at you on the split and the little bit of extra energy made it a really powerful template. Plus it's a good cover for attunement.

I tend to think at the moment that the biggest issue with AoR is the amount of healing. It was pushed up to pretty crazy levels back when Izzy was trying to make it work as healing alone, and then when the energy was tacked on it suddenly became playable and the healing has been revealed to be nuts. This is a general balance problem where things are pushed way out of proportion to try and force them into the metagame, and them being really unattractive once they are (another example that springs to mind like this was Patient Spirit).

As I've said before, Aura's biggest contribution to getting Mind Blast back into the game is that it makes the character function without the Attunement. As the Attunement is so vulnerable this is essentially required for the character to have any sort of 8v8 presence. The issue becomes that Mind Blast + Attunement + Aura becomes crazy energy that can power anything, provided that anything is based in fire. But the bigger problem is that a character that just puts out damage is actually good in GW now; it wasn't a year ago. Any utility you could put on that guy has been weakened to the point where it's a waste compared to just stacking on more damage.

I'm not sure how you'd want to get there, but in a perfect world I'm pretty sure you'd want to emphasize cross-attribute utility and punish stacked enchantments to the point of forcing Attunement off the bar. But there are so many steps that would need to be taken to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

Well mindblaster macro doesn't strike me as much of a template need, rather than the general player ability everyone should have.

Perhaps *should* have, but the game has not rewarded that in quite some time. Field awareness and macro is in complete shambles. It had been completely replaced by a micro party over the last year and a half, as the anti-split counters were buffed like mad while splitting enablers were nerfed into the ground.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

Compared to some other split characters that I would consider healthier, their macro decisions are simplified a lot (having so many tools readily available, and barely worried about any specific character matchups in their movement).

Oh there are a ton of split characters that I would consider much more desirable. But they have not been viable in the game for some time. Current Mind Blast templates are not a very desirable version, but they are more desirable than *nothing*.

I think you have the tools part backwards. Mind Blast / Distortion guys have no tools available to them whatsoever, unless you consider Meteor much of a tool. But neither do their opponents. Decisions are simplified heavily because there are very few tools in Guild Wars anymore; tools have been replaced by damage and healing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

I was just asking about this a week or two ago, and the only response someone could muster was 'what else would you run with one?'

Well the answer certainly isn't another Mind Blaster. Two Mind Blasters is actually a particularly bad combination to have in one place, because they do not have any of the aformentioned tools. In practice you want to pair a Mind Blaster with either a Warrior or Ranger; in combination the pair is very strong, as the damage from the Mind Blast amplifies the tools used by either the Warrior or Ranger. The best reason for running two is almost certainly to present physical + Mind Blast on either side of a split.

In practice the most value the Mind Blast guy has at the stand is that when Mind Blast + Ranger in the base pulls the Word of Healing guy back to defend, Mind Blast + X can kill the crappy Monk and punish the team for pulling him back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Disagreed completely. The health of a metagame is defined by the desirability of the builds/tactics used within the metagame, NOT by the number of different builds/tactics that happen to inhabit it.

It's defined by both. One 'desirable' build is a very unhealthy metagame. A whole bunch of broken crap is also an undesirable metagame. We've been moving from one piece of broken crap to multiple pieces of broken crap. This I consider an improvement.

I suppose the difference in opinion stems from whether or not the builds of the last year and a half have also been undesirable crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

"Can" is the critical word here. A good, desirable build should not automatically win against any build, instead, it should merely enable the possibility. The actual result should be almost completely dependent on the playing that goes on inside the match, rather than some glorified R/P/S taking place beforehand.

This starts to happen naturally as the builds in a metagame start to mature. Rock starts to give up tools for it's scissors matchup so that it has more tools to outplay paper. As this metagame is only a few weeks old, that hasn't happened yet. I do not know to what degree the game is capable of supporting that anymore, but I am interested to see.

Being able to go all-in on rock, paper, or scissors to give you a significant advantage if you guess right is an important part of the game, though. It needs to allow that, and if it's not possible then the game is doomed to be unhealthy. That's one of the reasons I consider this metagame to be encouraging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

This is the main reason why Distortion-MBlast eles are undesirable. You can't beat them unless you take very specific counter skills which are not useful against hardly anything else.

I'm now convinced that they do not need specific counters to kill consistently; they are perfectly vulnerable to tools that are otherwise strong in the metagame.

Jeydra · Jun 01, 2009, 01:32 AM // 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

There should be (in fact there should be several), and the fact that you don't think so is precisely the reason why you end up with such errant arguments and erroneous conclusions. "Can" is the critical word here. A good, desirable build should not automatically win against any build, instead, it should merely enable the possibility. The actual result should be almost completely dependent on the playing that goes on inside the match, rather than some glorified R/P/S taking place beforehand.

This is the main reason why Distortion-MBlast eles are undesirable. You can't beat them unless you take very specific counter skills which are not useful against hardly anything else. This leads directly to pre-match R/P/S (ATs) or dumb luck (ladder) influencing the outcome of a battle far more than the actual playing that goes on inside the game, which is completely, utterly, terribly undesirable.

Disagree completely.

If there were a build (or even several) that could beat every other build in the game, that would be the end of build variety. Everyone would play one of those builds. That's it. What else is there? We've already seen such builds in the past. rawrspike, omegaspike, A/P spike, VoD Illusion builds, etc. Do you want a game in which you can only play a few options because anything else you might try fails? I do not.

Pre-match Rock / Paper / Scissors isn't bad either. So it happens. So what? It already happens, eg. against dual Fire Ele splits you bring Balanced Stance on Monks, against hexes you bring Peace and Harmony, etc. And that's the point of playing a balanced build right? You have some way of dealing with every build you might face. You could go one-dimensional and bring, say, Dark Escape + Brace Yourself + two copies of Infuse hoping to face Gothspike, and then lose to every other build. That's your choice. Rock starts to give up tools for it's scissors matchup so that it has more tools to outplay paper. Risk vs. gain. If someone risks Bloodspike in a mAT finals and guesses right, I don't see why he doesn't deserve to win.

Neo-LD · Jun 01, 2009, 02:49 AM // 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

Let's compare that to the "dominant builds" that made finals in the past year and a half:
Sinsplit
Ineptitude-way
Dervspike
Rawrspike
A/P spike
W/A spike
Signet mes buff builds (qE's derv train or rawr's 6 monks or primal+lingering easymode)
Lordcamp builds

Here and there you'll see some 2 ranger builds, but for the most part I'd say hexes and fire rewards player skill in terms of positioning, collapses, etc. than the previous builds I mentioned.

So is spamming ineptitude & friends at VoD considered more intelligent play? How about hitting your spike skills on 2 or 1 and going defensive for the rest of the match? While I agree that hexes/fire isn't the pinnacle of intelligent play, you still get a lot more when you watch for large groups of people and smart removals than if you spam it randomly. Not to mention the split build isn't just running around aimlessly.

It really depends on your definition. What it sounds like is that you think of skillful and fun as two 8v8 pressure teams going against each other. When was the last time we saw that? For the past year, it's mostly been 8v8 spike, and when we can at least move to split template, I'd say that's an upgrade to the skill level of the game.

I think I can address your entire post by just pointing out that I did not attack or defend any of the builds that have been used in past metagames. Now that you bring it up, very few of the builds of the past have been desirable either, but that doesn't redeem the builds of today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

It's defined by both. One 'desirable' build is a very unhealthy metagame. A whole bunch of broken crap is also an undesirable metagame. We've been moving from one piece of broken crap to multiple pieces of broken crap. This I consider an improvement.

I think you should explain what would be so bad about a metagame with one desirable build.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

This starts to happen naturally as the builds in a metagame start to mature. Rock starts to give up tools for it's scissors matchup so that it has more tools to outplay paper. As this metagame is only a few weeks old, that hasn't happened yet. I do not know to what degree the game is capable of supporting that anymore, but I am interested to see.

Who cares if Rock starts meta-ing Paper if both are undesirable in the first place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Being able to go all-in on rock, paper, or scissors to give you a significant advantage if you guess right is an important part of the game, though. It needs to allow that, and if it's not possible then the game is doomed to be unhealthy. That's one of the reasons I consider this metagame to be encouraging.

AND

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Pre-match Rock / Paper / Scissors isn't bad either. So it happens. So what? It already happens, eg. against dual Fire Ele splits you bring Balanced Stance on Monks, against hexes you bring Peace and Harmony, etc. And that's the point of playing a balanced build right? You have some way of dealing with every build you might face. You could go one-dimensional and bring, say, Dark Escape + Brace Yourself + two copies of Infuse hoping to face Gothspike, and then lose to every other build. That's your choice. Rock starts to give up tools for it's scissors matchup so that it has more tools to outplay paper. Risk vs. gain. If someone risks Bloodspike in a mAT finals and guesses right, I don't see why he doesn't deserve to win.

Why? Why should guessing right in the pre-game have any effect on the outcome of the match? Due to the nature of the Guild Wars, it always will, but why in the world is that desirable? I don't play Guild Wars for the thrill of guessing what build my opponent is going to play. I play Guild Wars for the thrill of proving that I'm better than other players by meeting them on the field and defeating them even though it was possible for them to defeat me. Thats how it is in organized sports (NFL, NBA, etc) and actual cybersports (WC3, Starcraft, etc), and I don't see why that shouldn't be the goal here as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

I'm now convinced that they do not need specific counters to kill consistently; they are perfectly vulnerable to tools that are otherwise strong in the metagame.

How, precisely? If you try to defend them without splitting monks, they add more to the split until you have to split monks, at which point they snare, collapse, and DP your team. If you try to send back damage to kill them, they Distortion and get away to their Sprint-Monks unless you have Rigor and CripShot. You can hurt them with caster damage, but the only good caster damage is... Mind Blast, which doesn't fix its own problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Disagree completely.

If there were a build (or even several) that could beat every other build in the game, that would be the end of build variety. Everyone would play one of those builds. That's it. What else is there? We've already seen such builds in the past. rawrspike, omegaspike, A/P spike, VoD Illusion builds, etc. Do you want a game in which you can only play a few options because anything else you might try fails? I do not.

Why are you so enamored by build variety? The joy of Guild Wars does not lie in facing a different build every game, nor using a different build every night. As I've already explained, the joy of Guild Wars for me comes from outplaying my opponents, and I don't need a diverse selection of builds to do that. In fact, diverse builds tend to only get in the way, as they introduce alien differentiating factors into the win/loss equation other than the abilities of myself and my opponents.

Jeydra · Jun 01, 2009, 03:07 AM // 03:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Why? Why should guessing right in the pre-game have any effect on the outcome of the match? Due to the nature of the Guild Wars, it always will, but why in the world is that desirable? I don't play Guild Wars for the thrill of guessing what build my opponent is going to play. I play Guild Wars for the thrill of proving that I'm better than other players by meeting them on the field and defeating them even though it was possible for them to defeat me. Thats how it is in organized sports (NFL, NBA, etc) and actual cybersports (WC3, Starcraft, etc), and I don't see why that shouldn't be the goal here as well.

How much of Barcelona's win vs. Manchester United in this year's Champion's League final was based on the tactics Guardiola prepared by guessing what Ferguson would run?
How much of Vladimir Krammik's win vs. Garry Kasparov in their World Chess Championship match was decided by opening preparation and guessing what the other guy would play?
Do you think Robert Lee won the Battle of Chancellorsville because his soldiers "met their opponents on the field and defeated them even though it was possible for them to be defeated", or do you think he won because he outhought Hooker?
Have you seen SK Gaming outpick and hence defeat MYM in DotA?

What is your problem with intelligent guessing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Why are you so enamored by build variety? The joy of Guild Wars does not lie in facing a different build every game, nor using a different build every night. As I've already explained, the joy of Guild Wars for me comes from outplaying my opponents, and I don't need a diverse selection of builds to do that. In fact, diverse builds tend to only get in the way, as they introduce alien differentiating factors into the win/loss equation other than the abilities of myself and my opponents.

Maybe you should quit competitive play then, because I don't think there are many games that are decided purely by skill, unless you count preparation as "skill" too (wherupon guesswork falls under preparation, so what's your problem?).

I'll also point out that some time ago, the only one desirable build aka. NPC farming at VoD with Illusion Magic was completely boring to watch, and I presume, play - hence the problem with "only one desirable build". When every single game winds up going against the same build with the same tactics, there would be nothing new, and things would quickly get boring.

lutz · Jun 01, 2009, 03:44 AM // 03:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

I think I can address your entire post by just pointing out that I did not attack or defend any of the builds that have been used in past metagames. Now that you bring it up, very few of the builds of the past have been desirable either, but that doesn't redeem the builds of today.

I think you should explain what would be so bad about a metagame with one desirable build.

Who cares if Rock starts meta-ing Paper if both are undesirable in the first place?

AND

Why? Why should guessing right in the pre-game have any effect on the outcome of the match? Due to the nature of the Guild Wars, it always will, but why in the world is that desirable? I don't play Guild Wars for the thrill of guessing what build my opponent is going to play. I play Guild Wars for the thrill of proving that I'm better than other players by meeting them on the field and defeating them even though it was possible for them to defeat me. Thats how it is in organized sports (NFL, NBA, etc) and actual cybersports (WC3, Starcraft, etc), and I don't see why that shouldn't be the goal here as well.

How, precisely? If you try to defend them without splitting monks, they add more to the split until you have to split monks, at which point they snare, collapse, and DP your team. If you try to send back damage to kill them, they Distortion and get away to their Sprint-Monks unless you have Rigor and CripShot. You can hurt them with caster damage, but the only good caster damage is... Mind Blast, which doesn't fix its own problem.

Why are you so enamored by build variety? The joy of Guild Wars does not lie in facing a different build every game, nor using a different build every night. As I've already explained, the joy of Guild Wars for me comes from outplaying my opponents, and I don't need a diverse selection of builds to do that. In fact, diverse builds tend to only get in the way, as they introduce alien differentiating factors into the win/loss equation other than the abilities of myself and my opponents.

Build variety is good. Every healthy game has it.

The only problem with Guild Wars right now is that the tournaments are one-round only, which means you only need one gimmick to win the match. Most games like Guild Wars have tournaments that are best-of-3.

Neo-LD · Jun 01, 2009, 04:00 AM // 04:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

How much of Barcelona's win vs. Manchester United in this year's Champion's League final was based on the tactics Guardiola prepared by guessing what Ferguson would run?
How much of Vladimir Krammik's win vs. Garry Kasparov in their World Chess Championship match was decided by opening preparation and guessing what the other guy would play?

Those examples would be roughly equivalent to me watching a particular warrior on observer mode so that when I played him, I would be able to anticipate his target selection and prot better. That has nothing to do with changing build, and everything to do with simply playing better, which is what I'm trying to emphasize.

Quote:

Do you think Robert Lee won the Battle of Chancellorsville because his soldiers "met their opponents on the field and defeated them even though it was possible for them to be defeated", or do you think he won because he outhought Hooker?

I think you've out-thought yourself and cited an example actually supporting my point of view. You can think of Lee and Hooker as the players and Lee won in large part due to the fact that he "outplayed" Hooker. Of course, real war is not a mere competition, and nations in war are not competing with enforced fair terms to figure out who has the best soldiers or generals. They are in an anything-goes struggle to win at any cost.

To head off an objection that I know I will have just raised in your mind, I do not suggest that players should not try to win at any cost. They should. Its the responsibility of the game designers, not the players, to carry out all this desirability stuff to make sure the outcomes of their games are meaningful.

Quote:

What is your problem with intelligent guessing?

I'd much rather emphasize intelligently guessing what an opponent is going to do once the game has started, rather than beforehand. Build selection in GW should be akin to race selection in WC3 or character selection in SC4. While you may end up with some 4:6 matchups, overall selection is more an element of style than of necessity.

Quote:

I'll also point out that some time ago, the only one desirable build aka. NPC farming at VoD with Illusion Magic was completely boring to watch, and I presume, play - hence the problem with "only one desirable build". When every single game winds up going against the same build with the same tactics, there would be nothing new, and things would quickly get boring.

I don't think you understand what desirability means. Tell me, what was desirable about the VoD Illusion farming build?

Snow Bunny · Jun 01, 2009, 04:09 AM // 04:09

I don't believe I'm the only one here when I admit that I will sacrifice a bit of balance for a reasonable amount of build variety.

As for intelligent guesswork:

Many professional Starcraft and Halo3 players are known to keep their opponent guessing, be it build order or squad formations.

scruffy · Jun 01, 2009, 04:31 AM // 04:31

lots of builds and skill adjustments being viable is fun because it puts another dimension into the game like this: we don't know what they are running but we know we are better than them so we can sacrifice some of our power for flexibility, and the same thing the other way around.

1 dominant build gets boring because what ends up happening is a bunch of mirror matchups where its just whatever team has the best micro wins

for example the past however many months of pure rawr spike battles, the build was fun to play but its funner to have to make up shit on the fly for something you arent 100% prepared for rather than the same routine every game

Jeydra · Jun 01, 2009, 04:33 AM // 04:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Those examples would be roughly equivalent to me watching a particular warrior on observer mode so that when I played him, I would be able to anticipate his target selection and prot better. That has nothing to do with changing build, and everything to do with simply playing better, which is what I'm trying to emphasize.

Then you are completely wrong. Krammik prepared better, and picked an opening Kasparov was not prepared for. Kasparov was taken by surprise and didn't manage to win. Krammik does not normally play the Berlin defense to the Ruy Lopez, so he obviously changed builds. Guardiola did the same. He put players in positions Ferguson wasn't prepared for, and his strategy failed. That's changing the build too.

By the way the "roughly equivalent" thing you mentioned is the same. You can watch a particular guild play on obs all day and then come up with builds to go straight at their weak points (eg. their Infuser is bad, so you exploit this weakness). Of course after you do that, the other team will come to Guru and bitch about how imbalanced spike is, how they should have a build that can beat every other build, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

I think you've out-thought yourself and cited an example actually supporting my point of view. You can think of Lee and Hooker as the players and Lee won in large part due to the fact that he "outplayed" Hooker. Of course, real war is not a mere competition, and nations in war are not competing with enforced fair terms to figure out who has the best soldiers or generals. They are in an anything-goes struggle to win at any cost.

Lee outplayed Hooker because he was prepared to do things Hooker didn't guess. He won the strategical skirmish, so to speak. He did not go into the Guild Wars equivalent of 8v8 and simply "fight better", which is what you seem to think is how the game should be played (read what you wrote - you said "meet them on the field and defeating them even though it was possible for them to defeat me").

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

I don't think you understand what desirability means. Tell me, what was desirable about the VoD Illusion farming build?

I don't know. You tell me. You said it's fine to have a metagame with only one desirable build, and here I give you one: a metagame with only one desirable build, the VoD Illusion farm. If you win, you win by successfully balling up the other team's NPCs better. Skill, right? So tell me, what's so undesirable about it?

DreamWind · Jun 01, 2009, 04:47 AM // 04:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

I think you should explain what would be so bad about a metagame with one desirable build.

A lot is wrong with it. For starters almost nobody would be playing this game is there was only one desirable build. Guild Wars was built on the Magic the Gathering system, where build variety is celebrated (and marketed for that matter). With only one build the game becomes uninteresting as without that variety there are far better choices for skill based games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

Who cares if Rock starts meta-ing Paper if both are undesirable in the first place?

I think if Rock can beat Paper, that is desirable. That doesn't mean they are particularly fun or hard to play, but in terms of the metagame and balance I would say the builds are desirable.

I think what Ensign is saying is that we don't know if Guild Wars has the potential to evolve its own metagame anymore. Ideally this is what a lot of people are looking for. If enough people spec against the E/Me split build, the E/Me split build will fall out of favor for something else...etc etc. This may not necessarily happen in Guild Wars, but we won't know if Anet keeps artificially forcing change. I think if the players can't change the metagame, then Anet should, not the other way around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

Why? Why should guessing right in the pre-game have any effect on the outcome of the match? Due to the nature of the Guild Wars, it always will, but why in the world is that desirable? I don't play Guild Wars for the thrill of guessing what build my opponent is going to play. I play Guild Wars for the thrill of proving that I'm better than other players by meeting them on the field and defeating them even though it was possible for them to defeat me. Thats how it is in organized sports (NFL, NBA, etc) and actual cybersports (WC3, Starcraft, etc), and I don't see why that shouldn't be the goal here as well.

Guild Wars does not fit into any of the other examples you mentioned, because in those games you have predetermined tools that are used to defeat your opponent's predetermined tools. The Guild Wars metagame is built on build choices moreso than play choices (although in the peak of GW we have seen play choices affect the metagame as well).

Not to mention, many people consider metagaming a skill in itself. From a Magic the Gathering perspective, a lot of pros pride themselves on determining what decks will be played most in any given tournament, and altering their deck to beat those decks consistently. It doesn't mean their plan will necessarily work, but if it doesn't they use their skill to pull matches out (rock beating paper).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

Why are you so enamored by build variety? The joy of Guild Wars does not lie in facing a different build every game, nor using a different build every night. As I've already explained, the joy of Guild Wars for me comes from outplaying my opponents, and I don't need a diverse selection of builds to do that. In fact, diverse builds tend to only get in the way, as they introduce alien differentiating factors into the win/loss equation other than the abilities of myself and my opponents.

Honestly, I think you are playing the wrong game then. Ideally we want the player abilities to be the major factor, but it will NEVER be the only determining factor. Part of the joy of games like GW and MTG is those other factors that you dislike. Again, without the variety there are far better choices for games where I can outplay my opponent.

Yue · Jun 01, 2009, 05:11 AM // 05:11

Pretty sure you're playing the wrong game. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure most people preferred watching matches like DF vs vZ where both teams ran dynamic balanced builds instead of hexes vs dual para.

That said, mindblast eles are overpowered. So is weaken knees.

Ego · Jun 01, 2009, 05:37 AM // 05:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yue

Pretty sure you're playing the wrong game. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure most people preferred watching matches like DF vs vZ where both teams ran dynamic balanced builds instead of hexes vs dual para.

That said, mindblast eles are overpowered. So is weaken knees.

I have to agree with Yue, as much as it hurts me to do so.

Master Fuhon · Jun 01, 2009, 05:39 AM // 05:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

I don't play Guild Wars for the thrill of guessing what build my opponent is going to play. I play Guild Wars for the thrill of proving that I'm better than other players by meeting them on the field and defeating them even though it was possible for them to defeat me. Thats how it is in organized sports (NFL, NBA, etc) and actual cybersports (WC3, Starcraft, etc), and I don't see why that shouldn't be the goal here as well.

Team sports are defined as head-to-head, causing a separate element to be added to the competition. There are individual sports like running, golf, and swimming where you can execute the same strategy and not have to worry about an opponent’s strategy. At the end of these events, results are calculated and a victor is determined. Competitive PvE missions are exactly what you desire. An individual sport is basically that: player versus environment. The default mechanics in guild wars PvP modes will always force people into adapting to and guessing strategies (even if the builds were mandated). Of course I'm describing a situation where the builds are not completely inflexible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Desirable builds

Unified 'desirability' is a theoretical claim that doesn't get implemented in a real environment. Desirability will soon be moved to mean 'mass consensus'. When a majority is represented by a single entity (in this case, a build), it is because the differences between the individuals have been truncated. Each and every desirable build that gets produced will come as a result of ignoring many opinions, due to inadequate polling or time constraints.

Desirable is one of the end polarities on a spectrum; its based on listening only to peoples opinions. The opposite of desirable is to use a more extreme approach that uses only statistics. That would produce an imbalance in the decision whether to listen to players or to act purely on under-representations found through statistics. Balance is based on listening to opinions, and letting statistics and data do the determining of which opinions to listen to.

Previous decisions were made to make things desirable (buffs because everyone likes buffs, game having an optimal strategy). These need to be offset by statistical balances. If statistical balances go too far, they can be offset by making things desirable. 'Too far' is determined by bulk player numbers and activity.

Stoella · Jun 01, 2009, 05:56 AM // 05:56

MB eles are overpowered, it is a fact, not an opinion.

Neo-LD · Jun 01, 2009, 06:46 AM // 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snow Bunny

I don't believe I'm the only one here when I admit that I will sacrifice a bit of balance for a reasonable amount of build variety.

As for intelligent guesswork:

Many professional Starcraft and Halo3 players are known to keep their opponent guessing, be it build order or squad formations.

I understand that some people may become bored if there is only one good build. Personally if that build were interesting enough, I would not become bored, as again, the thrill of Guild Wars for me comes from proving superiority, not using different things.

The examples you cite related to guesswork are very good examples of players adapting and improving their playing, which is perfectly desirable, in contrast to adapting a build beforehand to set up a nearly guaranteed win, which is undesirable, even if its unavoidable in practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scruffy

1 dominant build gets boring because what ends up happening is a bunch of mirror matchups where its just whatever team has the best micro wins

Such would be a better fate than Guild Wars currently endures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Then you are completely wrong. Krammik prepared better, and picked an opening Kasparov was not prepared for. Kasparov was taken by surprise and didn't manage to win. Krammik does not normally play the Berlin defense to the Ruy Lopez, so he obviously changed builds. Guardiola did the same. He put players in positions Ferguson wasn't prepared for, and his strategy failed. That's changing the build too.

Krammik did not change his build, he changed the way he played. He may have had to practice playing that way beforehand, but he did not change any of the properties of his pieces to be especially effective against Kasparov (not that he could have, anyways). In terms of desirability, this was fine because most of the actual competition still took place within the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

By the way the "roughly equivalent" thing you mentioned is the same. You can watch a particular guild play on obs all day and then come up with builds to go straight at their weak points (eg. their Infuser is bad, so you exploit this weakness). Of course after you do that, the other team will come to Guru and bitch about how imbalanced spike is, how they should have a build that can beat every other build, etc.

The roughly equivalent thing that I mentioned had to do with changing the way one plays the same build to be more effective against a specific opponent. The thing you suggest involves creating an entirely different build to defeat the opponent. While it's a players prerogative to do that, the game should not allow the possibility of making builds that set up 9:1 matches against otherwise good and desirable builds, as has often been the case in GW. The reason should be obvious: the emphasis needs to be on the mind games happening during the game, not beforehand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Lee outplayed Hooker because he was prepared to do things Hooker didn't guess. He won the strategical skirmish, so to speak. He did not go into the Guild Wars equivalent of 8v8 and simply "fight better", which is what you seem to think is how the game should be played (read what you wrote - you said "meet them on the field and defeating them even though it was possible for them to defeat me").

Lee played better by doing things that Hooker didn't expect, which nevertheless is still playing better and has nothing to do with Lee somehow "changing builds." But again, war is different, and there is no such thing as "desirable" since neither side is interested in fair terms or equal starting positions or anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

I don't know. You tell me. You said it's fine to have a metagame with only one desirable build, and here I give you one: a metagame with only one desirable build, the VoD Illusion farm. If you win, you win by successfully balling up the other team's NPCs better. Skill, right? So tell me, what's so undesirable about it?

You clearly don't have a clue what desirability is, and given its centrality to my arguments that would make it impossible for you to start arguing with me, so I'm a bit surprised you've tried. Here it is again: A mechanic is desirable if it is conducive to a skill-rewarding metagame wherein talented players and teams can distinguish themselves from rif-raff using elements of player skill. Some such elements are reflex, anticipation, yomi, multi-tasking, timing, etc. Some examples of specific skills that exemplify those elements would be Distracting Shot (reflex, anticipation, yomi), Bulls Strike (yomi, timing), and Guardian (anticipation, yomi). Some examples of specific character templates that in large part satisfy those elements would be traditional warriors, apply rangers, and prot monks. In any case, the overriding obsession of game balance needs to be to reward player skill to create an environment where the player who played better wins. Consequently the maximum potential of simple tactics such as button mash should be inherently designed to be weak in comparison to what can be achieved by more difficult tactics that require the aforementioned elements of player skill. As should be obvious, Mind Blast eles stand in blatant defiance of this principle.

If you understood what I just wrote, then you will clearly understand that the VoD Illusion farm is not desirable. I think you were confusing desirable with "powerful." VoD Illusion farm was powerful in its time, but certainly not desirable as it encouraged formulaic victories, NPC exploitation, overdone defense, and in general allowed people to win Guild Wars without playing Guild Wars. Thats a player's prerogative, but its up to the game to fix that so it doesn't happen. Fortunately that was changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamwind

Guild Wars does not fit into any of the other examples you mentioned, because in those games you have predetermined tools that are used to defeat your opponent's predetermined tools. The Guild Wars metagame is built on build choices moreso than play choices (although in the peak of GW we have seen play choices affect the metagame as well).

Then that, I'm afraid, is one of the main problems with Guild Wars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamwind

I think if Rock can beat Paper, that is desirable. That doesn't mean they are particularly fun or hard to play, but in terms of the metagame and balance I would say the builds are desirable.

I think it would be acceptable for Rock to have a 6:4 or maybe even 7:3 matchup against Paper. But any more than that and we start reducing the game to glorified R/P/S with some obligatory motions and pretty pictures thrown in afterwards. The argument I forward is not new, its been raised numerous times since Factions when people started feeling like they had lost based on build the instant the doors opened. I don't see why it should meet with so much resistance today.

@ Fuhon, Dreamwind, on desirability.

Neither of you seemed to understand what I meant by desirability, either. Please read above for clarification, to understand why your recent posts regarding desirability are in error.