Curse

Silentbreath · Jun 01, 2009, 07:10 AM // 07:10

I dont think they are overpowered. The build is, wihtout any doubt, competitive. But, unlike others competitives builds, you don't need to have any skill nor training to be strong with it. It is very easy to use, which is why we see it all around. According to me, strong builds that require no skill and no brain aint good for the game. It's kind of like bloodspike. And somehow now we see teams running 6 or 7 E/mE with monks in gvg.

lutz · Jun 01, 2009, 07:33 AM // 07:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silentbreath

I dont think they are overpowered. The build is, wihtout any doubt, competitive. But, unlike others competitives builds, you don't need to have any skill nor training to be strong with it. It is very easy to use, which is why we see it all around. According to me, strong builds that require no skill and no brain aint good for the game. It's kind of like bloodspike. And somehow now we see teams running 6 or 7 E/mE with monks in gvg.

6 or 7 E/Me's in a build requires a lot of skill if you're actually playing against a good team, and you want to win.

Maybe your definition of skill is "click buttons really fast", but this is a team game, and you have to take into consideration strategies, positioning, etc., which is equally difficult on a Mind Blast elementalist.

It's as imbalanced as builds nowadays, such as Word of Healing monks, Lingering Necros, Mel Shot rangers - it's on the same level as things that have risen with the power creep. It's simply the kind of caster damage you need to be successful in split situations. Which means - it's not imbalanced within the perspective of modern GvG.

Jeydra · Jun 01, 2009, 07:49 AM // 07:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

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.

I think you underestimate the effect of preparation in top-level chess. If you're in prepared territory and your opponent isn't, you've pretty much already won, or you have at least avoided defeat. In many ways the game(s) in question pretty much ended once Kasparov went into Krammik's prepared opening line. A lot of chess is decided on preparation.

And why do you say Krammik didn't change his build? In response to 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3, Krammik normally plays ... Nf6. He changed openings for his match vs. Kasparov. In Guild Wars, vK normally plays split builds. If they change their builds because they know what their opponent is running, what have they done different?

If you say they have changed their builds and won the game before it starts, then I can say Krammik won the game before it started by playing the Berlin defense instead of the Petrov.
If you say Krammik "changed the way he played" and the game was still decided on the chessboard, then unless vK's opponents /resign the moment they find out vK has changed their builds, the match was still decided in-game.

What's the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

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.

You patently fail to understand what I was driving at. I'm kind of surprised you're trying to argue with me when you dont' understand that.

I'll spell it out to you. You wrote, in response to Ensign:

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

By this statement you have clearly implied that it is perfectly fine if there is only one desirable build. You would later imply that player skill is a crucial factor in making a viable build desirable:

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.

And therefore you have backed yourself into a corner. The VoD build is, by your definition, a desirable build because it involves skill. The skill is very much one-dimensional in the sense that whoever herds the other team's NPCs better, wins. But it is skill nonetheless. Judging from your response you fail to see this, so I'll again show you. Do you remember the mAT finals on Uncharted when rawr played KMD? Both sides waited to VoD and were all ready to farm the other team's NPCs, and yet rawr wins and KMD loses. Why?

Read:

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...&postcount=200

Mitch isn't known for being a gracious loser, and you can almost be sure that there'd be luck, servers, etc. to blame. Yet Mitch attributes the loss primarily to experience. Experience. Pretty synonymous to "skill", don't you think? And so we conclude that:

VoD balling the NPCs and farming them is a skill.

And from this, and using the earlier statement 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, we have:

VoD balling the NPCs and farming them is desirable.

Like I said, you backed yourself into a corner. The last statement is, I'm sure we both agree, wrong. But your arguments lead logically to it.

**********

If you don't agree with this, then screw the semantics and we'll use a different example. KMD vs. KK on Uncharted a couple of mATs ago. Omegaspike vs. A/P spike. Spike vs. spike. Whoever wins wins by skill right? Can we conclude that meta was desirable then?

Or if you don't agree with that, then screw that as well and look at yet another example. rawr vs. everyone else back when rawrspike wasn't nerfed. rawrspike vs. every other build in the world. Once again whoever wins does so by skill right? Can we conclude that ANet should not have nerfed rawrspike then?

Vanquisher · Jun 01, 2009, 07:53 AM // 07:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Guardiola did the same. He put players in positions Ferguson wasn't prepared for, and his strategy failed. That's changing the build too.

This is an extremely weird comparison. Especially because it's completely untrue. Guardiola played exactly what was expected. The only changes came due to injury. The mid-match change was dropping Messi to midfield to completely overrun it and keep the ball, as Barcelona um, always do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

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.

I'm curious as to what you'd want to happen in terms of a balance update (if any). While I'm more than happy to let the meta adapt (as it always has in the case of hexes), I'd much rather see a rather wide-scale decrease in terms of power of quite a lot first, so that flexible characters are once again allowed in the game. Then again, I'm quite anti- the end mechanic matches have now if Lords aren't dead, which is one of the huge reasons the Mind Blast template annoys me so much - where one team will have to actually take on a lot of extra pressure/damage in order to win despite an even game, there is no requirement for the other to incur that problem. Then after a time they can effectively just chill because they've accomplished their end-goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

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

It becomes stale. Then come tournaments people completely build wars you out with hard counters (akin to Weaken Knees vs. split play). Granted that can actually have an exponential effect on the meta, creating its own mini-tournament meta, though with the huge power some templates have it does tend to become foolish not to run them.

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?

It encourages people to be more diverse in their playstyle and more adaptable, which I'd consider a good thing. It allows for mid-game change more frequently. One desirable build will merely lead players to run something undesirable to beat the aforementioned desirable build. Against lots of hard counters being packed there's really not that much you can do except hope mistakes are made. You can try and outplay them but in capacity terms you might only be playing at about 50% because of the obstacles to overcome. When you have several desirable builds you stop people having the ability to completely spec with hard counters and instead increase diversity, with slight changes here and there to stop those builds that would usually rip through them not being able to do. Effectively, you give yourself a chance (which is what you're arguing for).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

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.

The problem with your argument, as I see it, is the poor balance bracket under which most casters fall - particularly Ele's and Necro's. Then there's also an argument to be made for ping - which seems to be such an issue now (far beyond what it was before), particularly owing to the prevalence of interrupts.

I'm of the opinion that the best way forward is a combination of both sides of the argument. You clearly favour a more micro- and active-based level of play, though Guild Wars is designed for out-thinking people to be an issue and we've seen it all the way through the game - particularly in tournament play. Look at all the teams that ran spike vs. WM/EvIL in tournaments on Burning. WM's choice of Warrior's Isle in the GWFC final. iQ's trump card of Meteor Shower vs. EvIL's dual Assassin in the semi. EW's FoC spike and iB's FCAS. iB's Recall split, and hex Builds beginning to run Scourge Healing vs. Heal Party. These all at a time when there were desirable builds, when many would argue Guild Wars was at its peak.

Clever build choice and pre-game planning should be rewarded. But that isn't to say that active play and versatility shouldn't. Everyone will have their own thoughts on the correct ratio, but unless we do allow for players to change the meta themselves with less frequent balance the game simply won't evolve.

DreamWind · Jun 01, 2009, 08:05 AM // 08:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

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.

Your definition of desirable is anything that rewards player skill. You then go on to say Mind Blast eles and VoD Illusion farm aren't desirable because they are easier to play and don't reward player skill. The problem is what happens when everybody is running Mind Blast ele build? Doesn't the team with the better reflexes, anticipation, multitasking, and timing, (the things you consider playskill) still end up winning?

Not that I want that situation...I want a deep multiple build meta. But you can't say you only want a "desirable" build that rewards playskill and claim that multiple build choices just get in the way of that. Why can't we have a lot of desirable builds?

I suppose you'll say that you want all builds to require the same amount of skill to play. Well there are pros and cons to that. Either way it is nearly impossible. It hasn't been done in MTG, and it won't be done in GW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

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

You are basically saying that the problem with Guild Wars is that it isn't like SC, WC3, or live sports. Thing is, if I want to play those games I will play those games. I don't look at different builds in GW or MTG as a problem, I look at them as something unique that seperates them from those other games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

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.

I think the ideal situation is "one build can be favored over another but play skill is still the main determining factor in that the underdog build will still win if the players running it outplay the other team".

Of course nobody wants the game to be over before the door opens. Not many people want to be fighting a mirror match every game either though. That is almost like in Street Fighter nobody picks any character other than Ryu. Is the game balanced? No...all the other options aren't playable and the game is boring.

urania · Jun 01, 2009, 08:27 AM // 08:27

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.

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.

I couldn't agree more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

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.

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.

That.

lustnlood · Jun 01, 2009, 09:14 AM // 09:14

why so much metaphors and drama and all that crap.... this has gone off topic... just state facts and then players will balance things out...

MB + energy gain + aor + attunement = lots of health and energy and dmg
Distortion = imba block
MB + distortion = energy + health + block + kill
MB vs. PBlock/ diversion = pwned

now if you really want to discuss a REAL ISSUE discuss how a class has the ability to spike + spread conditions + interrupt + ranged + completely and utterly self-sufficient.... in other words a MB ele is peanuts compared to the everlasting and never affected by nerf ranger. now thats an issue... MB eles, like every other build come and go... but ranger... ooooh noo .... those are here to stay

Ferminator · Jun 01, 2009, 10:51 AM // 10:51

This seems like a good solution to nerf the build just enough to weaken its synergy with distortion.

Mind Blast: Elite Spell. Target foe is struck for 15...51...60 fire damage. If you have more Energy than target foe and are unaffected by a stance, you gain 1...7...8 Energy.

or

Mind Blast: Elite Spell. Target foe is struck for 15...51...60 fire damage. If you have more Energy than target foe and are unaffected by an enchantment, you gain 1...7...8 Energy.

Or maybe the energy gain could be reduced if you are enchanted or are in a stance because the thing that fuels distortion with energy is mind blast + fire attunement + aura of restoration. We don't want or need to 25/90 distortion because eles abuse their skills to bypass how its 'supposed' to be balanced. We just need to tone down the energy gain.

kedde · Jun 01, 2009, 03:15 PM // 15:15

It's yet another quick fix that does nothing to solve the underlying problems and seem utterly stupid when you look at them.

Neo-LD · Jun 01, 2009, 04:21 PM // 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

I think you underestimate the effect of preparation in top-level chess. If you're in prepared territory and your opponent isn't, you've pretty much already won, or you have at least avoided defeat. In many ways the game(s) in question pretty much ended once Kasparov went into Krammik's prepared opening line. A lot of chess is decided on preparation.

And why do you say Krammik didn't change his build? In response to 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3, Krammik normally plays ... Nf6. He changed openings for his match vs. Kasparov. In Guild Wars, vK normally plays split builds. If they change their builds because they know what their opponent is running, what have they done different?

If you say they have changed their builds and won the game before it starts, then I can say Krammik won the game before it started by playing the Berlin defense instead of the Petrov.
If you say Krammik "changed the way he played" and the game was still decided on the chessboard, then unless vK's opponents /resign the moment they find out vK has changed their builds, the match was still decided in-game.

What's the difference?

For Krammik to change builds he would have needed to somehow change the properties of his pieces, so that Rooks or Pawns etc would do something that they normally don't do, and assuming that that thing is somehow super-effective against what Kasparov normally does, this would enable Krammik to have a better chance of winning. For example, Krammik could decide that knights would be much more useful against Kasparov than Bishops, and therefore use 4 of them instead of the normal two of each. Of course, that is not allowed. Therefore we can conclude that Krommik merely changed the way he played. His preperation was most similar to, for example, NFL teams watching tape of their upcoming opponents to gain familiarity and practice counter-plays. They don't change any significant parts of their roster (which would be a build change), they just change the way they play the game, and practice it a bit beforehand. The difference is quite clear, and I'm growing tired of having to point it out again and again.

As for vK, they can adjust to their opponent by running a completely different build than normal, which I would classify as an undesirable part of guild wars because it prioritizes the things that happen before a match. Or, they can adjust the way they play their usual build, by changing who they split where at what times, how often they try certain things, etc. This kind of adaptation is perfectly desirable since it emphasizes what happens during a game.

Quote:

You patently fail to understand what I was driving at. I'm kind of surprised you're trying to argue with me when you dont' understand that.

I'll spell it out to you. You wrote, in response to Ensign:

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

By this statement you have clearly implied that it is perfectly fine if there is only one desirable build. You would later imply that player skill is a crucial factor in making a viable build desirable:

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.

And therefore you have backed yourself into a corner. The VoD build is, by your definition, a desirable build because it involves skill. The skill is very much one-dimensional in the sense that whoever herds the other team's NPCs better, wins. But it is skill nonetheless. Judging from your response you fail to see this, so I'll again show you. Do you remember the mAT finals on Uncharted when rawr played KMD? Both sides waited to VoD and were all ready to farm the other team's NPCs, and yet rawr wins and KMD loses. Why?

Read:

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...&postcount=200

Mitch isn't known for being a gracious loser, and you can almost be sure that there'd be luck, servers, etc. to blame. Yet Mitch attributes the loss primarily to experience. Experience. Pretty synonymous to "skill", don't you think? And so we conclude that:

VoD balling the NPCs and farming them is a skill.

And from this, and using the earlier statement 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, we have:

VoD balling the NPCs and farming them is desirable.

Like I said, you backed yourself into a corner. The last statement is, I'm sure we both agree, wrong. But your arguments lead logically to it.

I did understand what you were driving at, however, what you are trying to point out is both incorrect and irrelevant. If you were paying attention to my previous posts, you would already understand this.

I did say that it would be fine for there to be one desirable build. Key word is desirable, which I have defined at least twice thus far in this thread. Your argument fails when you assert that my arguments somehow lead to the conclusion that VoD Farming was desirable. This can only be because you do not understand what desirability is.

VoD Farming is not desirable because it requires almost no skill at all. Any team of complete idiots could stand around until VoD, and then press their buttons on the NPCs as fast as they can, rinse and repeat every match. Required skill = nearly none. Maybe its that you don't understand that required skill is a spectrum, rather than a true/false. Everything requires at least some amount of thought, even just pressing a button. Even the VoD farm build requires a little of that. However, some things require vastly more thought than others, and those things are more desirable. In light of all that, its impossible that my arguments could conclude anything other than VoD Farm is undesirable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

If you don't agree with this, then screw the semantics and we'll use a different example. KMD vs. KK on Uncharted a couple of mATs ago. Omegaspike vs. A/P spike. Spike vs. spike. Whoever wins wins by skill right? Can we conclude that meta was desirable then?

Or if you don't agree with that, then screw that as well and look at yet another example. rawr vs. everyone else back when rawrspike wasn't nerfed. rawrspike vs. every other build in the world. Once again whoever wins does so by skill right? Can we conclude that ANet should not have nerfed rawrspike then?

Again, you fail to understand desirability. The team that spiked better probably won, but pure spike builds are not a particularly desirable part of guild wars because they are simplistic and make very little use of the elements of player skill. Specifically, they take so much defense that its almost impossible to die, and reduce their offense to simple 321s. Very little thought required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

Then come tournaments people completely build wars you out with hard counters (akin to Weaken Knees vs. split play).

One desirable build will merely lead players to run something undesirable to beat the aforementioned desirable build. Against lots of hard counters being packed there's really not that much you can do except hope mistakes are made. You can try and outplay them but in capacity terms you might only be playing at about 50% because of the obstacles to overcome.

This is already covered in my arguments. The balance of the game should not allow any undesirable builds that set up 9:1 matches against desirable builds to exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vanquisher

Clever build choice and pre-game planning should be rewarded. But that isn't to say that active play and versatility shouldn't. Everyone will have their own thoughts on the correct ratio, but unless we do allow for players to change the meta themselves with less frequent balance the game simply won't evolve.

I'd say a 1:99 ratio would be acceptable. Build choice should be an element of style, not of necessity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamwind

Your definition of desirable is anything that rewards player skill. You then go on to say Mind Blast eles and VoD Illusion farm aren't desirable because they are easier to play and don't reward player skill. The problem is what happens when everybody is running Mind Blast ele build? Doesn't the team with the better reflexes, anticipation, multitasking, and timing, (the things you consider playskill) still end up winning?

Not that I want that situation...I want a deep multiple build meta. But you can't say you only want a "desirable" build that rewards playskill and claim that multiple build choices just get in the way of that. Why can't we have a lot of desirable builds?

I suppose you'll say that you want all builds to require the same amount of skill to play. Well there are pros and cons to that. Either way it is nearly impossible. It hasn't been done in MTG, and it won't be done in GW.

Please see above, where I explained to Jeydra that desirability is a spectrum, not a true/false. All things require at least a little thought, but some things require much more than others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreamwind

I think the ideal situation is "one build can be favored over another but play skill is still the main determining factor in that the underdog build will still win if the players running it outplay the other team".

Agreed. Using this statement we can justify nerfs to both hexes and fire. At last, progress!

Snow Bunny · Jun 01, 2009, 04:28 PM // 16:28

I don't like this tie-breaker system. I'd like to think I'm echoing Vanq's sentiments, but with VoD it used to be possible to turn a defeat into a win by a strong push at VoD.

Now....if you're wiped, you're wiped, they'll split off WK necros and fire eles to kill your split and defend it with the flag runner while your main team accumulates DP.

zzz

Ensign · Jun 01, 2009, 06:54 PM // 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamWind

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.

That's basically it. You need a set of tools that is deep and flexible enough that people have the ability to tweak characters and builds to adapt to what they expect. With the way the game is currently balanced (which is around a few gross elite skills and combinations), I'm not sure that the tools exist.

Essentially, the way it works out is that skilled teams are not willing to concede matches to rock-paper-scissors. If they have a rock build, naturally strong against scissors but weak against paper, they will happily weaken the scissors matchup to shore up the paper matchup. The same goes for the other builds, and as people adapt the builds stop having such polarizing matchup percentages and start to be differing strategies with which people outplay each other. Polarized builds only start to pop back up when a team becomes predictable, as a way to punish a known matchup.

Similarly, if rock is too good, all the rock builds start to sacrifice their scissors and paper matchups to try and get better against rock. This works until all the other rock builds do the same thing. Then the rock builds are still evenly matched against each other, but are suddenly more vulnerable to scissors and paper matchups. This opens the metagame back up.

A game is more or less in balance if these mechanisms are working. Different builds can tweak themselves to prepare for different matchups, to either prepare for everything as best as possible or to take a calculated risk. If a particular build becomes most popular it starts to cannibalize itself. A healthy metagame like this rewards all sorts of important high-level skills, including abstract build making and refinement, understanding of the interaction between build and strategy and tactics, high level strategy, metagame awareness and familiarity, scouting, and the ability to play multiple different styles of builds.

It also opens up a much more rich tactical experience once in game. DShot in a static metagame is formulaic. Timing, prediction, and execution are still required, but what you are trying to accomplish are known. In an open metagame, the skills you are trying to hit with DShot are not necessarily obvious. They will vary from matchup to matchup, and even against the same build they may be different depending on tweaks to the build. Being able to identify what you need to DShot suddenly becomes the most important skill, above execution. Or, going a step further, knowing when DShot is and isn't what you should be focusing on. This is one of the primary differences between Guild Wars 2006 and Guild Wars 2007.

The metagame we have right now at least superficially looks like something that can evolve into a reasonable facsimile of the 2007 metagame, though again I'm not sure that the skill set is deep enough to support it. That is a significant step up from the metagames of much of 2008, which alternated between single broken combo builds and formulaic defensive warrior spikes.

Master Fuhon · Jun 01, 2009, 07:05 PM // 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

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.

Desire is a feeling of loss. Desirability is the measurement by which something is expected to cure the feeling of loss. Saying a skillful build is desirable makes no sense. Skillful means skill requiring, not skill granting. Absence and necessity are what produce desire. That is why desire leads to skill development; desire is a feeling of loss, and skill is a response to deal with current and future losses. People are incapable of desiring necessity itself. By the nature of desire, desirable builds would have reduced necessity; they would not require skill. A skill granting build is undesirable, especially if skill is what people desire.

People cannot desire a skill unless they are in necessity of it; people cannot desire a particular bar unless they are in necessity of it. Skillful templates are only skillful because they counter strong actions. Bull's Strike counters how easy it is to run. Distracting Shot counters how easy it is to activate an important skill. Guardian counters how easy it is to kill something with physical damage. Further skill based actions are then based on dealing with how easy it is to Bulls, D-Shot, and Guardian. Complex layers of skill are only developed on top of simplified layers of less skillful activity. It’s not appropriate to compare fully matured mechanics with new ones.

Strong actions, strategies, and builds are strong because they are difficult to counter. Skill in Guild Wars is an ability to personally counter game mechanics that are difficult to counter. In order for a skillful template to exist, a less skillful template must exist that produces some kind of loss for that template. This act of losing produces an adaptation and the development of skill. Skill does not exist prior to the more powerful template. But after the imbalance in template power first appears, skill is added to those who work to gain ground against the easier template.

The Mind Blast template exists as a new branch in 'skill creating' split oriented play. It's only necessary because split and map utilization had been shut down by inadequate self defense and hard split counters. It has to start out as somewhat skill-less, because it’s currently countering something that was more skill-less: 8v8 at the flag stand.

SirSporks · Jun 01, 2009, 07:11 PM // 19:11

Just because a build is beating out or hindering the current meta, does not mean that the build needs to be nerfed. Change the meta? Use some creativity and talent to beat this build! It's not that hard. You can completely shut this build down with a good whirling axe build with D-chop, and an IAS. A mesmer can always shut multiple mindblast ele's down using skill such as diversion, VoR, and general disruption. It's not that hard, or you can just attack through distortion and drain off more energy than they can regain (RaO teams are awesome for this).

Because a build makes the Meta change, so... let it change.. that is what GW is about. Use some creativity to get around this! Don't complain to Anet because the builds you use are no longer as affective as they once where. Just change to accommodate them.

Neo-LD · Jun 01, 2009, 08:30 PM // 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Desire is a feeling of loss. Desirability is the measurement by which something is expected to cure the feeling of loss. Saying a skillful build is desirable makes no sense. Skillful means skill requiring, not skill granting. Absence and necessity are what produce desire. That is why desire leads to skill development; desire is a feeling of loss, and skill is a response to deal with current and future losses. People are incapable of desiring necessity itself. By the nature of desire, desirable builds would have reduced necessity; they would not require skill. A skill granting build is undesirable, especially if skill is what people desire.

People cannot desire a skill unless they are in necessity of it; people cannot desire a particular bar unless they are in necessity of it. Skillful templates are only skillful because they counter strong actions. Bull's Strike counters how easy it is to run. Distracting Shot counters how easy it is to activate an important skill. Guardian counters how easy it is to kill something with physical damage. Further skill based actions are then based on dealing with how easy it is to Bulls, D-Shot, and Guardian. Complex layers of skill are only developed on top of simplified layers of less skillful activity. It’s not appropriate to compare fully matured mechanics with new ones.

The Mind Blast template exists as a new branch in 'skill creating' split oriented play. It's only necessary because split and map utilization had been shut down by inadequate self defense and hard split counters. It has to start out as somewhat skill-less, because it’s currently countering something that was more skill-less: 8v8 at the flag stand.

This isn't a psychology session, so all in all I didn't find this post particularly useful. Desirable is just a word that I've found convenient as a short-hand, local definition, to express a more complicated idea. Within the context of my argument, saying a skillful build is desirable makes perfect sense, and indeed, is the cornerstone of understanding everything that I say.

Since they are spectra, you are correct that desirable needs undesirable as a reference point, just as skillful needs unskillful. One of my main points has been that while undesirable and unskillful will inevitably exist, they should intentionally be designed to have lower maximum potential than desirable and skillful.

In this case Mind Blast exists and is an example of unskilled play. I think you suggest that they ought to be powerful in order to force people to play skillfully in order to defeat them? This logic fails in that it grants undeserved power to idiots, and raises the bar to a point where even skilled play often cannot overcome the combination of ease and power presented by the Mind Blast build.

Lets explain further: what we should aim for is a situation where we have a spectrum of effectiveness somewhat like so:

Skillful build played by bad player < Unskillful build played by bad player ~< Unskillful build played by good player <<< Skillful build played by good player

This is why DShot, Bulls, and Guardian are such good examples. In the hands of a bad player, they will do almost nothing. In fact they will only make them worse as they waste energy trying to make them work. But in the hands of a good player, they are devastatingly effective. For skillful builds, the ceiling of effectiveness should be higher, and the floor lower. This is exactly how I propose to meet my own desirability requirement of "enabling talented individuals and teams to distinguish themselves from rif-raff."

This is also why Mind Blast is such a bad apple, so to speak. It is more powerful in its role than basically every skillful template, no matter whose playing it. It violates the desirable ordering, which is reason enough to tone it down.

Master Fuhon · Jun 01, 2009, 09:26 PM // 21:26

What I said did not correlate with the scientific definition of psychology (study of the mind). In order to study the mind, one has to separate it from the entirety of the self/being. My exact statements resemble a connection between ontology and epistemology, not psychology. The definitions of words can be experienced by all of a being, not just the mind. Definitions encompass both being and knowing. Guild Wars and psychology do not change definitions.

Majority of arguments are over semantics and word definitions. Words are defined based on people’s experiences of them. Those with poor understanding of people cannot define words, because definitions are the creations of people. The process of learning and receiving definitions from people is tied with empathy (shared experiences between people). You vibrate your vocal chords; someone else experiences a vibration in the ear. That doesn’t typically get called empathy, but it is a similar concept. When the vocal chords do not vibrate as intended, or the ears do not receive messages as intended, the result is a lack of understanding.

Based on what you are saying, you have chosen to change one of the highest level definitions of desire to suit a more specific purpose. Changing definitions to encompass a narrow field of view is a definition I have for the word ‘wrong’.

These arguments are basically that which has already been said: micro-level view versus macro-level view. The two are in competition because micro level viewing is predominant.

Neo-LD · Jun 01, 2009, 11:04 PM // 23:04

Look Fuhon, stipulative definitions are a perfectly uncontroversial component of argumentation. Strictly speaking, when working with stipulative definitions its not allowed to import any connotations or meanings that the word has under normal circumstances, and I think that you are worried that I might have cheated by breaking that rule. Be assured that I have not.

Desirable (normal definition): worth having or wanting; pleasing, excellent, or fine

"Desirable" (my stipulative definition): Conducive to a skill-rewarding metagame wherein talented players and teams can distinguish themselves from rif-raff using elements of player skill

Its desirable to have a "desirable" metagame, but not at all because I chose that word. Instead:

1. The main point of competition is to determine superiority.
2. It would be Desirable (normal definition) to satisfy the main point of competition.
3. To satisfy (1), a the results of a competition must be meaningful
---> Stipulative Definition: Meaningful Results: The reason that the winning team won was because they played better.
4. To best satisfy (3), there must exist a "Desirable" (stipulative) metagame.

Therefore, it is desirable to have a "desirable" metagame. This overlap is the reason why I chose the word in the first place. The overlap led to the selection of the word, not the other way around.

Master Fuhon · Jun 01, 2009, 11:58 PM // 23:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

1. The main point of competition is to determine superiority.

Competition only determines inferiority. That which is superior, is that which is less able to be determined by other things. Cooperation determines superiority, because cooperation presents those that have determining capacity (leadership traits). That which is superior can just be what it is. Competition is an act of resistance against determining.

I think the game would be much better if competition to demonstrate inferiority were reduced (because people think it proves superiority, when it only demonstrates inferiority). People would be free to be what they want to be. I believe balance can play a part in pushing some of it out, because that is ultimately what has impeded the growth of the PvP side of the game.

It's a different story if it involves prizes and people needing things to prove their livelihood. But in this game, the best cooperators have always beaten competitors, so it's not like the people who desire winning the most are going to win anyway.

DreamWind · Jun 02, 2009, 12:46 AM // 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Please see above, where I explained to Jeydra that desirability is a spectrum, not a true/false. All things require at least a little thought, but some things require much more than others.

I have so many problems with your definition of "desirability". One reason is because it hinges on the definition of what player skill in this game is and it runs into the problem of what happens when two "undesirable" builds face each other.

Nevertheless, I have a feeling we agree on most things and we are off topic anyways. I only entered this thread because some people claimed that a one build meta would be ok which I strongly disagree with. I'd prefer a multiple build evolving meta as Ensign explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo LD

Agreed. Using this statement we can justify nerfs to both hexes and fire. At last, progress!

You may be able to justify nerfs to these things, but certainly not using my statement. I think we are seeing a split in the definition of balance when it comes to these builds. Although they are easy to play, they may still be good for the game in that they changed up the stale meta that used to exist. We don't have an ideal situation, but is it better than what we used to have? Are we calling for nerfs because they are too easy to play or because we want a one build meta again?

Jeydra · Jun 02, 2009, 01:08 AM // 01:08

So everything boils down to this, doesn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

VoD Farming is not desirable because it requires almost no skill at all. Any team of complete idiots could stand around until VoD, and then press their buttons on the NPCs as fast as they can, rinse and repeat every match. Required skill = nearly none. Maybe its that you don't understand that required skill is a spectrum, rather than a true/false. Everything requires at least some amount of thought, even just pressing a button. Even the VoD farm build requires a little of that. However, some things require vastly more thought than others, and those things are more desirable. In light of all that, its impossible that my arguments could conclude anything other than VoD Farm is undesirable.

You may not agree, but no. If VoD farming took so little skill, how did rawr win so often?

When two players meet and one is significantly more skillful than the other, you expect the more skillful player to win.
When two equally skilled players meet, you expect eventually everything to even out at 50/50 each.

rawr won. They beat just about everyone. They beat everyone many times. Explain that, in the context that "VoD farming takes almost not skill".