Curse

moriz · Apr 27, 2009, 02:42 AM // 02:42

it's more like KMD chucked "honour" into the trashbin and went for the jugular. "true" balanced builds generally do no win tournaments.

Derelict Daily · Apr 27, 2009, 07:29 AM // 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

it's more like KMD chucked "honour" into the trashbin and went for the jugular. "true" balanced builds generally do no win tournaments.

I've never quite understood this concept of "honor" in regard to competitive GvG. Competitive teams in guildwars want to win, and they have always used what the game - at any particular time - gives them. Is it "honorable" to run a less effective build and lose? I don't think so. I seem to recall EW winning the Factions championship by running a Rit spike on Imperial Isle. And iQ defeating EviL in Germany using a broken turtling mechanic and a build designed to kill NPC's at VoD. What iQ did caused Anet to totally change the game, but I don't recall anybody saying they were "dishonorable" because they wanted to win.

I Angra I · Apr 27, 2009, 08:36 AM // 08:36

I luv ego .

BarPusher · Apr 27, 2009, 01:50 PM // 13:50

Vicious Delicious is a good infected mushroom album

.

Quote:

I've never quite understood this concept of "honour" in regard to competitive GvG.

Think of it like motorbike racing. There might be a league with specific rules or plans put in place, perhaps on engine size or something. The league name might be a "one litre motorbike race". The track might be set out for one litre motorbikes. All the other bikes racing, might be one litre motorbikes.

Now someone might find a way to use a 1.2 litre motorbike. The rules might not specifically specify you can do this. Perhaps you can get away with it by using different break pads, different tyres, a fatter rider. Perhaps there's some stupid way to avoid it but isn't cheating, per say.With that in mind they are playing legally but at the same time to some it is considered dishonourable because they are playing different to what some deem the game should be played like.

Perhaps it's more like glitching. The game developers do what they can to make something balanced (I don't just mean guild wars) and someone finds a way to get around it with some weird method. In counter strike for example, that would be crouching in a certain pattern to maintain speed but not give off foot steps. In Call of Bad 1, you could kill your team but it wouldn't put your teams score down (so if one was low health about to be killed by enemy, you could kill him).

Now you can say, well the game was built like that, and people want to win, everyone has the opportunity to do that, blah blah. The truth is though, some find that a dishonourable way of playing.

Now whether you can honestly say that this applies to guild wars is just an opinion, in my opinion anyway. I can understand the theory of people thinking it's dishonourable but I don't know if I believe in it.

I mean, the game has gotten more aggressive, faster paced. GVG's have sped up. Perhaps the game is now telling us to run 1.2 litre engines

.

Quote:

And iQ defeating EviL in Germany using a broken turtling mechanic and a build designed to kill NPC's at VoD. What iQ did caused Anet to totally change the game, but I don't recall anybody saying they were "dishonorable" because they wanted to win.

Most people don't speak Korean and probably wouldn't have discussed it so much. With a name such as the last pride, it's kind of stating the obvious if you do discuss it though huh?

.

Cirian · Apr 27, 2009, 07:29 PM // 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derelict Daily

I've never quite understood this concept of "honor" in regard to competitive GvG. Competitive teams in guildwars want to win, and they have always used what the game - at any particular time - gives them. Is it "honorable" to run a less effective build and lose?

Honour is a misguided concept in competitive gaming, as it can only amount to a self-imposed handicap. Competitive players just need to play by the official rules, and play to win.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Apr 27, 2009, 08:06 PM // 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirian

Honour is a misguided concept in competitive gaming, as it can only amount to a self-imposed handicap. Competitive players just need to play by the official rules, and play to win.

It's more fun to play builds that are fun to play than boring builds, in this meta all builds are boring however so we decided we might as well run the best ones.

MMSDome · Apr 27, 2009, 08:13 PM // 20:13

Why do people bitch about builds. Try and counter them or use something even lamer. Just cause your build is shit doesn't make theirs lame.

Morons.

Aera · Apr 28, 2009, 09:33 AM // 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

Why do people bitch about builds. Try and counter them or use something even lamer. Just cause your build is shit doesn't make theirs lame.

Morons.

Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way. Some builds can only be countered by the same build and better play, some builds by izzy realizing 2 years late that a build is highly overpowered ( rawrspike anyone? ).

Same stuff with the nH build and the omegaspike.

Motoko · Apr 28, 2009, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derelict Daily

I seem to recall EW winning the Factions championship by running a Rit spike on Imperial Isle.

Good try.

You were close though.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Apr 28, 2009, 02:13 PM // 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiator Motoko

Good try.

You were close though.

He meant they won a GWFC qualifier season by FoC-spiking.

Neo-LD · Apr 29, 2009, 12:35 AM // 00:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derelict Daily

I've never quite understood this concept of "honor" in regard to competitive GvG. Competitive teams in guildwars want to win, and they have always used what the game - at any particular time - gives them. Is it "honorable" to run a less effective build and lose? I don't think so. I seem to recall EW winning the Factions championship by running a Rit spike on Imperial Isle. And iQ defeating EviL in Germany using a broken turtling mechanic and a build designed to kill NPC's at VoD. What iQ did caused Anet to totally change the game, but I don't recall anybody saying they were "dishonorable" because they wanted to win.

Most people's conception of an honorable build is one that does not rely on some sort of inherent overload and win in large part based on whether or not opposing teams bring strong enough counters to deal with that overload. Some examples of overloads would be hex pressure, condi-pressure, big spike, and dedicated split. Because there are so many threats that a defense must prepare for, its very difficult for a team to be completely prepared against every (or even multiple) overloads at once. This of course leads to build wars.

Upon closer examination of past and current metagames, one can observe a strong correlation between honorable builds and ineffective ones, and the reverse for dishonorable builds. This is mostly due to a trend of increasing competence in GvG. As the game is now several years old, people understand it better now than at any previous point. Several years ago good players were able to win with consistently and creatively with honorable builds, mostly because of the incompetence of most of their opponents. Now that defense is sounder, offenses are more refined, and split responses more accurate, honorable builds have a very difficult time making up for their lack of an overwhelming force.

This has even more to do with build refinement as it does with player competence. As mentioned before, there exist several forms of build overloads that a dishonorable build may employ. Because of this, teams build their defenses to try and survive the extraordinary challenges presented by a given overload. Physical defense is designed to survive against 4+ physical attackers. Party heal and hex removal is designed to survive dedicated hexing midlines. Split defense (relevantly flaggers) are designed to combat dedicated splits. As could be expected, this increases the onus on honorable teams to very difficult levels, as no matter what arena of combat they choose (8v8, split) they will be doing battle with tools inferior to those the enemy team has prepared against.

The conclusion of all this is that honorable builds are just plain bad. They are now, they were before, and in fact always have been, though player incompetence shrouded that fact for quite some time. Is this desirable? Probably not. How could it be fixed so honorable builds were viable? This is essentially the same question as how to eliminate build wars, and I'm not sure anyone knows how to do that for sure.

Cantehman · Apr 30, 2009, 11:57 AM // 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Most people's conception of an honorable build is one that does not rely on some sort of inherent overload and win in large part based on whether or not opposing teams bring strong enough counters to deal with that overload. Some examples of overloads would be hex pressure, condi-pressure, big spike, and dedicated split. Because there are so many threats that a defense must prepare for, its very difficult for a team to be completely prepared against every (or even multiple) overloads at once. This of course leads to build wars.

Upon closer examination of past and current metagames, one can observe a strong correlation between honorable builds and ineffective ones, and the reverse for dishonorable builds. This is mostly due to a trend of increasing competence in GvG. As the game is now several years old, people understand it better now than at any previous point. Several years ago good players were able to win with consistently and creatively with honorable builds, mostly because of the incompetence of most of their opponents. Now that defense is sounder, offenses are more refined, and split responses more accurate, honorable builds have a very difficult time making up for their lack of an overwhelming force.

This has even more to do with build refinement as it does with player competence. As mentioned before, there exist several forms of build overloads that a dishonorable build may employ. Because of this, teams build their defenses to try and survive the extraordinary challenges presented by a given overload. Physical defense is designed to survive against 4+ physical attackers. Party heal and hex removal is designed to survive dedicated hexing midlines. Split defense (relevantly flaggers) are designed to combat dedicated splits. As could be expected, this increases the onus on honorable teams to very difficult levels, as no matter what arena of combat they choose (8v8, split) they will be doing battle with tools inferior to those the enemy team has prepared against.

The conclusion of all this is that honorable builds are just plain bad. They are now, they were before, and in fact always have been, though player incompetence shrouded that fact for quite some time. Is this desirable? Probably not. How could it be fixed so honorable builds were viable? This is essentially the same question as how to eliminate build wars, and I'm not sure anyone knows how to do that for sure.

I dunno, I really wouldn't plainly look at it purely from a rock paper scissors perspective. Sure, putting your eggs in one basket limits your effectiveness, but you do have all those eggs. You could arguably say (disregarding some of the more silly metagames) that the honourable balanced build was capable of employing an effective mixture of all three archetypes of offence (split pressure and spike). Honourbalanced builds are always bound to be at a disadvantage against most other things, but you'd have to find a pretty damn retarded build if you really have nothing you can do. (disregarding player skill ofc, balanced just requires large amounts of this)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derelict Daily

I've never quite understood this concept of "honor" in regard to competitive GvG. Competitive teams in guildwars want to win, and they have always used what the game - at any particular time - gives them. Is it "honorable" to run a less effective build and lose? I don't think so. I seem to recall EW winning the Factions championship by running a Rit spike on Imperial Isle. And iQ defeating EviL in Germany using a broken turtling mechanic and a build designed to kill NPC's at VoD. What iQ did caused Anet to totally change the game, but I don't recall anybody saying they were "dishonorable" because they wanted to win.

Buildwarsing and being dishonourable was more prevalent when you could win prizes that were actually worth something in guild wars, and while it is of course fun to win games, I can assure you alot of guilds prefer playing the inferior, but fun and diverse build, instead of the boring OP builds.

For instance, the W/A and A/P spikes nowadays are extremely effective, but I've yet to see someone who actually enjoys playing the Me/E in it.

Still Number One · May 01, 2009, 03:38 PM // 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cantehman

For instance, the W/A and A/P spikes nowadays are extremely effective, but I've yet to see someone who actually enjoys playing the Me/E in it.

Or the actual build itself. Most players who GvG play because they are competitive people. Most competitive people would like the outcome of a match to be determined by who is most skilled or who plays the more perfect game rather than, who ran the more imba build. That is why the old "Balanced" build was extremely fun to run for a large chunk of the community. It had the tools to not lose to nearly any build the opponent could bring. But you had to outplay the opponent to win the game. It wasn't about who brought hexes in a game with minimal hex removal, or who brought the caster spike in a game of extreme blocking. It was about who could position themself better and capitalize on their opponents mistakes better in order to get and advantage for VoD or win the game before that.

moriz · May 01, 2009, 03:51 PM // 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still Number One

Or the actual build itself. Most players who GvG play because they are competitive people. Most competitive people would like the outcome of a match to be determined by who is most skilled or who plays the more perfect game rather than, who ran the more imba build. That is why the old "Balanced" build was extremely fun to run for a large chunk of the community. It had the tools to not lose to nearly any build the opponent could bring. But you had to outplay the opponent to win the game. It wasn't about who brought hexes in a game with minimal hex removal, or who brought the caster spike in a game of extreme blocking. It was about who could position themself better and capitalize on their opponents mistakes better in order to get and advantage for VoD or win the game before that.

it also relies on the fact that the team playing the balanced build be substantially better than their opponents playing the "unbalanced" build. this is why balanaced build won't win tournaments, because all the teams in the round of 16 are much closer skill wise.

Still Number One · May 01, 2009, 07:01 PM // 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

it also relies on the fact that the team playing the balanced build be substantially better than their opponents playing the "unbalanced" build. this is why balanaced build won't win tournaments, because all the teams in the round of 16 are much closer skill wise.

I agree but the point was some people find it more fun to challenge themselves and feel like they won because they were the better team, not because they used the better build. Then again in mAT play it is all about winning so that whole logic gets thrown out the window. I was more talking in a general sense, which included pointless ladder farming.

I Angra I · May 01, 2009, 09:03 PM // 21:03

The thing with honor is that if you do well with a broken build like A/P spike, everyone still thinks you're bad because it's an overpowered build. But if you do well with a balanced build, then you earn more respect in the gvg community and people think you are actually good.

Now, if you don't care what people think, by all means just run A/P spike or something similar all the time.

But that's sort of what honor is all about, either you are respected or not respected among your peers in the community based on what you do to win.

Personally I'd much rather win 2nd with a more balanced build and be respected for it than win with a broken build and win 1st and have the whole community think I'm not good anyway.

Now, of course the exception to this is a case like KMD's: if you have already proven that you can do well with both a balanced and broken build, the community's opinion is a little more lenient when it comes to respecting you, because you've shown already that you don't HAVE to run a broken build to win, it just tips it more in your favor.

If a guild were to run one single gimmick spike through the whole monthly, then a lot less respect would be given to them, than to say a guild that ran balanced half the time and a gimmick spike half the time.

(The exception to this in my opinion is KK who, while they run gimmick spikes, are THE gimmick spikers and that is what they do and they are damn good at it.)

scruffy · May 01, 2009, 11:20 PM // 23:20

the point of the balanced build wasnt about honour, it was about preparing for anything the enemy could throw at you if you didnt know what they would run, however in tournaments when you have a pretty good idea of what theyre going to play why bother bringing a balanced build if you know you can cut corners and get away with it

I Angra I · May 02, 2009, 02:55 AM // 02:55

I know what the point of a balanced build is. That wasn't my point.

Also you don't even need to have a good idea of what someone is going to run to be able to run something like A/P spike or 1 war spike. Those builds can deal with everything just like balanced builds did, except they are ridiculously overpowered and easy to play rather than requiring a decent amount of player skill.

Morgan Crowe · May 04, 2009, 10:49 AM // 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Angra I

I know what the point of a balanced build is. That wasn't my point.

Also you don't even need to have a good idea of what someone is going to run to be able to run something like A/P spike or 1 war spike. Those builds can deal with everything just like balanced builds did, except they are ridiculously overpowered and easy to play rather than requiring a decent amount of player skill.

A/P Spike is vulnerable to hexes or the spike build which badv is playing. At least it's easier to count than the latter. cry's build (which is played way better by badv) is really hard to counter, since hexes won't work and you can't mirror them because on the one hand they are more experienced and on the other hand they have excellent players.

But looking forward to the update anyways, I'm a little bit bored of the metagame. Hopefully we can play more games like the one vs dP two days ago after the thursday update.

IMMORTAlMITCH · May 04, 2009, 02:03 PM // 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morgan Crowe

A/P Spike is vulnerable to hexes or the spike build which badv is playing. At least it's easier to count than the latter. cry's build (which is played way better by badv) is really hard to counter, since hexes won't work and you can't mirror them because on the one hand they are more experienced and on the other hand they have excellent players.

But looking forward to the update anyways, I'm a little bit bored of the metagame. Hopefully we can play more games like the one vs dP two days ago after the thursday update.

The 2 warrior 3 caster midline is not a counter to a/p or w/a spike, only to bad ones.

Cry's build only really beats the sig mes, me/e, e/n build and possibly hexes if played with PBlock instead of surge.