Curse

scruffy · Feb 12, 2009, 09:07 AM // 09:07

ok heres a suggestion for anet

FORCE TEAMS TO RUN MORE OFFENSIVE CHARACTERS IF THEY WANT MORE OFFENSE!!

rend enchantments:dont worry about this skill, if you nerf the compressed damage, people wont be able to reliably kill in this small window anymore

weapon of warding: dont worry about this skill, when teams stop bringing 3 offensive characters and 5 defensive ones it wont be a big deal anymore, because it will stop a lower percent of their offense, and it will be more prone to shut down

prot was kaolai: same with warding, maybe make it 20-25 second recharge with a 2 second cast if its still really gay after the spike nerfs

problem skills:

ancestors rage: the damage from this skill lands at the same time as caretakers charge and the rest of the spike doing like 100+ damage in 1 second from a defensive caster

1 second activation bow attacks, read the wind, flail

these 3 things make pew pew rangers able to do like what..over 200 damage in the span of 1.5 seconds? the fact that it can do this much damage this quickly every 5 seconds turns my stomach

distracting strike: this skill makes hammer spikes too deadly, KD-Crushing-half second followup on spikes is like..lol ur ded lololol, make dstrike have a normal activation time but disable skills for 15-20 seconds, like an energy version of dchop that can be used on all weapons

steam: this skill does like 90 damage and couples as a defensive skill, its not a priority though imo, nerf the other stuff first then see how things pan out

Sierraa · Feb 12, 2009, 11:31 AM // 11:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by valence

So nH loses to a subpar guild and then you respond they still lose 50% if replayed couple of times. Certainly makes your diversity point valid...

I wasn't there so obviously we lost. /flex -ahem-

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

nH's build? It still baffles me that people actually die to that build, let alone lose to it, then again I wasn't surprised one bit when nH lost to some low ranked team that just so happened to run rawrspike, funny how that goes.

It baffles me how people die to it too, and sorry we made a few mistakes. ;P It happens. Though I do find it funny that people actually copy our build and fail at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

We play the builds we play, because we enjoy the playing style, we know it's not the most effective/best playing style for winning, but we can still beat 90% of the people with them and to be frank, considering what's left to win in Guild Wars, having fun is a lot more important to me than having the best chance to win.

That sounds oddly like what nH tries to do. :] I actually agree with something you said. <3

Jeydra · Feb 12, 2009, 12:31 PM // 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTALMITCH

If you would have actually ever moved away from your own spike builds for just 1 second, you'd realise how different some of these builds play.

How can you even say that a build with 3 warriors a ranger and a mesmer plays the same way as a build with 2 warriors a ranger a mesmer and a bsurge?

Maybe ... but how different is a build with 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 BSurge from 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 Water Ele?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTALMITCH

Then why do you defend your build so much? When it's pretty obvious it's broken, just look at GeAr's performance last monthly, and compare it to the months before.

I don't get why you try so hard to keep other playstyles than your own from being viable, what do you possibly have to lose?

I want playstyles other than defensive spike and 'tiebreaker split' to be viable, this hasn't really been the case for a very long time.

I don't get you. You wrote on QQ forums that GeAr's performance last monthly is because they have some talented players. And besides ... how's that related to the topic at hand? If you mean to prove that it shows rawrspike is imbalanced, then you don't have to prove it since I don't think anyone disputes that it is rather overpowered right now.

And I don't get why you try so hard to keep your own playstyle. You propose eliminating stuff contrary to your own playstyle, which is just the same as eliminating any strategy other than defensive spike. I can say as an observer that the builds you listed above are largely similar. Not the same, yes - but largely similar. Personally I want to see Kappaspike, Airspike, FoC spike, bloodspike, hexways, pressure builds based on Tainted Flesh, pressure builds based on massive energy denial, smiteways, heavy split builds, Searing Flames, anti-Monk Mesmers with Migraine, NR + Tranq, the list goes on. Sure there is a difference between having 3 Warriors + 1 Dom Mes + 1 Ranger and 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 BSurge, but the difference between them is a lot smaller than their differences with (say) Kappaspike. If Izzy pushes through with the balance changes you suggested in the other topic without buffing more skills, maybe you'll enjoy the game more, but don't say you've increased build variety.

Kaon wrote at QQ forums that people have always used stances, and that the natural build counter to stances are casterspike and hexes. He has a point - defensive stances have no use against hexway, Balanced Stance + Shield Stance + Shield Bash do not affect casterspike. It seems pretty clear to me that buffing both casterspike and hexes would allow one to pierce the defenses. Rather than nerfing the defense (still have to nerf the obviously overpowered skills though), I would sooner add more options to the pool.

Zabe · Feb 12, 2009, 03:13 PM // 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Maybe ... but how different is a build with 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 BSurge from 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 Water Ele?

Presuming Mitch is talking about water ele being E/Mo shatterstone splitter, it makes difference.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Feb 12, 2009, 03:19 PM // 15:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Maybe ... but how different is a build with 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 BSurge from 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 Water Ele?

Quite different, if you ever played them at a decent level you would know this, builds with a BSurge ele are generally a lot more focused on spiking than builds with a water ele, which revolve more around creating a positional advantage.

Quote:

I don't get you. You wrote on QQ forums that GeAr's performance last monthly is because they have some talented players.

It's called sarcasm..

Quote:

And besides ... how's that related to the topic at hand? If you mean to prove that it shows rawrspike is imbalanced, then you don't have to prove it since I don't think anyone disputes that it is rather overpowered right now.

Except everyone that's in Rawr, with the exception of Jaden.

Quote:

And I don't get why you try so hard to keep your own playstyle. You propose eliminating stuff contrary to your own playstyle, which is just the same as eliminating any strategy other than defensive spike.

Keep my own playstyle? It's not viable at the moment, what is there to keep? I prefer a balance between pressure builds, spike builds and split builds, currently spike builds are heavily favored, followed by tiebreaker split builds (not the type of splitting I'd ideally envision, but mostly a result of the defensive spike builds that are quite prevalent) and far far behind there's pressure builds.

I'm not asking to eliminate spike as a playstyle, I'm asking to put it more in line with other playstyles.

Quote:

I can say as an observer that the builds you listed above are largely similar. Not the same, yes - but largely similar. Personally I want to see Kappaspike, Airspike, FoC spike, bloodspike, hexways, pressure builds based on Tainted Flesh, pressure builds based on massive energy denial, smiteways, heavy split builds, Searing Flames, anti-Monk Mesmers with Migraine, NR + Tranq, the list goes on.

And Kappaspike, Airspike, FoC spike and bloodspike aren't? And if you want to see hex and condition pressure builds to be viable, spike builds will have to see some nerfs as they're the reason builds like these stopped being viable in the first place.

Quote:

Sure there is a difference between having 3 Warriors + 1 Dom Mes + 1 Ranger and 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 BSurge, but the difference between them is a lot smaller than their differences with (say) Kappaspike. If Izzy pushes through with the balance changes you suggested in the other topic without buffing more skills, maybe you'll enjoy the game more, but don't say you've increased build variety.

Except when 90% of the builds that see play now, contain 1-2 turret rangers, 2 mo/w and a rit runner, you have even less build variety.

Who cares that some people buy guilds and run builds like bloodspike or kappaspike on them, it's hardly a viable build for any serious matches and it makes ladder play a borefest for any somewhat serious guild. Nerfing this isn't decreasing build variety, it's increasing playability of the game.

Quote:

Kaon wrote at QQ forums that people have always used stances, and that the natural build counter to stances are casterspike and hexes. He has a point - defensive stances have no use against hexway, Balanced Stance + Shield Stance + Shield Bash do not affect casterspike. It seems pretty clear to me that buffing both casterspike and hexes would allow one to pierce the defenses. Rather than nerfing the defense (still have to nerf the obviously overpowered skills though), I would sooner add more options to the pool.

The problem with casterspikes isn't that they can kill, it's that new-age casterspikes are a lot less hindered by interrupts and such than they used to be and have the same problems as every other spike build, requiring only 1-2 skills per character devoted to offense leaves 6-7 slots that can be filled with defensive skills, now not only is pressing 1-2 buttons as the same time a lot easier than shutting down defense, switching targets to avoid prots, forcing people out of position by pushing flaggers, etc., it's also a lot more forgiving.

If you kill with a spike, that's great, if you dont, you sit around and use defensive skills till your spike skills are recharged and try again. If you run a pressure build and get some pressure going, as soon as you take a death or even miss an interrupt on a party heal or something, all of your progress can be gone.

xDementia · Feb 12, 2009, 03:57 PM // 15:57

Anet doesn't understand what people want and doesn't understand how to achieve goals either. They want fast paced games, they want people to die fast while "keeping the game fresh" with forced metashifts. It only lasts for a couple of days before people are done toying with the overpowered stuff they get.

People choose the pace of the game no matter what kind of offensive buff is done and will always take enough defense to slow things down to their own pace in order to feel safe. At some point, offensive buffs reach a power level that makes it favorable to have as much defense as possible while still being able to kill. Defensive spike won't disappear that easily because it's the safest and strongest way to win.

Izzy only believes what he sees and a couple of times he may have asked people to prove him something is overpowered by showing him. What he doesn't seem to realize is most people don't like being forced to run those skills he wants to see play. Some people play for fun, some others play because they like to try new things and some other people only want to win. The first two types of people might show him diversity and that some skills are not overpowered because they don't play them... he only sees what he wants in that mosaic.

Offense has become stronger and stronger in skirmish since prophecies. We reached the point where people don't feel safe splitting. Just compare an old cripshot ranger and what we have now... when everything was weak the risk/reward involved in splitting was much lower and people would just try to create countless mismatches that would pay off in the end. That's the diversity and dynamic of play that made the game interesting and this aspect is far behind because of powercreep.

In order to make this game interesting again, changing skills won't be enough because Anet has to accept there are things they don't fully understand and that they can't fully control the shape the players give to the game. The vision they have may be blurred and it leads to misinterpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeydra

Maybe ... but how different is a build with 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 BSurge from 2 Warriors 1 Ranger 1 Dom Mes 1 Water Ele?

If it was possible to restore the game to its older pace, that is where the two builds would really show their differences. Those two builds will be different because roles are not exactly the same. Even though both eles can play as defensive midliners, one is better at splitting than the other. At the flagstand the role is the same but it's not the same if you consider each individual character in dynamic play like offensive/defensive split. Same goes with ranger, flagrunner and to some extent with the dom mes.

EDIT: On a side note, an increase in pace could be one of the many reasons why pve players hardly bother with pvp. Getting steamrolled over and over isn't really interesting. While slowing things down means nobody gets smashed, it also means there is more time to figure out what is going on during a battle and a bigger chance to adapt. In other words, more room for mistakes is a better compromise than button mashing if there is a need to make things easier for new players.

pah01 · Feb 14, 2009, 10:13 PM // 22:13

There are two routes right now left in this game.

Izzys route.

One is continue to buff things to the current power level and have a game revolving around lots and lots of broken stuff. The problem with this is that izzy doesn't seem to get that doing this breaks the game every three months and half of it never gets fixed.

There is so much thats broken right now that even fixing the current problems, like primal rage, activation times on hunters and melandrus will leave more broken stuff for people to run. Its like the game has just been released, with layers upon layers of broken stuff waiting to be discovered rather than a 3 year old game.

The route that would have fixed the game 2 years ago.

Nerfing problem shit when it happens.

The problem is that Izzy has proved again and again that he does not know how the game should be balanced. I haven't played in the top 20 even for over 18 months but there is no way in hell I would have buffed warriors endurance, primal rage, mark of insecurity, lingering curse and so on to their current levels. That kind of knowledge just should never leave you. If ensign was skill balancer and he said guys im doing gw2 for 50 hours a week and gw1 for 2 hours a year he would still be in a better position to not buff primal rage to 33%IAS AND IMS.

I feel almost insulted when Izzy does things like this. How does someone that incompetent get a post at Anet to screw the game over like this? Why isn't Izzy going in this shakeup too?

Joe

Asplode · Feb 15, 2009, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Enjoy Darkfall, I hear it's gonna be rly gud.

Secondly, it's not his job to create perfect balance, because that's an asymptote which varies in definition based on who you ask.

His job is to mix things up and create change, attempt to keep things fresh, and even then that task is a bit gray in nature.
Granted, he doesn't do the most perfect job, but he gets by with what resources are given to him.
"Mixing shit up" isn't an exact science, obviously, and yeah there's gonna be fudge-ups in the process, but that's part of growing as a game company in my opinion.
Four years' experience has little weight on the matter when you factor in the fact that his time is suddenly divided grossly in favor of GW2 development and the fact that game balance is a highly subjective concept.
...not to mention the fact that mixing things up is, by definition, entropic.

I suppose one could argue that time should have taught him what to expect when making certain changes to the game, in terms of how the pvp playerbase will react (aside from making angry forum posts, that is) and shift the metagame, but well... I can't speak for him.

Just sayin'...

Hundbert · Feb 15, 2009, 05:52 PM // 17:52

Edit: Isaiah is working on GW2 full-time, but he advises on GW1 as needed. Linsey Murdock and Joe Kimmes are two of the main people responsible for the direction of GW1. --Regina Buenaobra 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

pah01 · Feb 16, 2009, 05:05 AM // 05:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

Secondly, it's not his job to create perfect balance, because that's an asymptote which varies in definition based on who you ask.

His job is to mix things up and create change, attempt to keep things fresh, and even then that task is a bit gray in nature.

In my time I have been a hotel manager, chef, pub manager.

I really wish I could say to customers my job is not to cook your food properly its just to surprise you and mix shit up. Same goes for keeping beer in good quality, and keeping rooms and the various catering establishments clean. I am not meant to keep the place clean just mix dirt and cleanliness together. I could also say to my bosses I didn't make any promotional efforts due to mixing shit up as well.

Or maybe I don't wish that because that would make me incompetent at my job.

The same goes for all walks of life.

You can mix things up and do it well. Not screw the game repeatedly and make many fail balances. If there was another decent pvp game on the market gw pvp would be absolutely dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

Granted, he doesn't do the most perfect job, but he gets by with what resources are given to him.
"Mixing shit up" isn't an exact science, obviously, and yeah there's gonna be fudge-ups in the process, but that's part of growing as a game company in my opinion.
Four years' experience has little weight on the matter when you factor in the fact that his time is suddenly divided grossly in favor of GW2 development and the fact that game balance is a highly subjective concept.
...not to mention the fact that mixing things up is, by definition, entropic.

It doesn't matter how subjective something is. There is still the realm of what is acceptable and what isn't. Skills like Primal Rage or anything like this should be an automatic nogo area for anyone who has a basic understanding of how strong melee already is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

I suppose one could argue that time should have taught him what to expect when making certain changes to the game, in terms of how the pvp playerbase will react (aside from making angry forum posts, that is) and shift the metagame, but well... I can't speak for him.

Just sayin'...

I do not know how relevant that is. The problem the pvp community have with izzy is directly related to incompetency and not just making balances that we do not want to see.

Joe

Asplode · Feb 16, 2009, 09:15 PM // 21:15

If you don't wanna talk about Guild Wars, the door is right there.

However, when you begin to understand that tweaking skills in a video game is nothing even remotely close to cleaning hotels, you can proceed.
I'm not here to insult you, nor you me, so let's get that out of our systems first.

First off, the fact that game balance is entirely subjective is, in fact, extremely relevant, because there is very little distinction between what's marginally good and marginally bad in changing skills around.
It's a massive matter of opinion, whether you believe it is or not.
As far as simply awful changes, there's examples like Mark of Insecurity recently, and a handful of bad ones in the past, but don't think that he wasn't warned about these gems beforehand.

Brief look at the fact of the matter: Everyone will be able to play everything at any given time, and have an equal opportunity to win... unless they choose not to.
Thus, unlike WoW balance, you can't really screw over someone because they've been playing and raiding with their 1 main character, spending months getting gear for it only to have their talent spec nerfed to the ground.
The only failure you can have is killing off variety, and we've seen some dark times with that in the past, but right now it is, surprisingly, not that bad.
Here's what I've seen so far

Frontline:
Axe (PR/WE/Eviscerate's all but dead ;p),
Hammer (Dev-Rigor, Dev-Cunning, Magehunter, Enraged Smash),
Sword (PR, Cripslash, HB isn't too hot),
PalmStrike (Not too popular but it's still around even when not part of Sinsplit)
WoundingStrike (Same as above)

Midline:
Eles (BSurge, MBlast, SStone, even ran into a Searing Heat build yesterday)
Rits (Caretaker's - Soothing, Rigor, or Enfeeble for Resto, and Vital Weapon variant)
Me/E (Lyssa's, Expel, Mirror)
Me/Rt (PBlock, ESurge, VoR, Ineptitude even)
Me/N (FC Lingering still exists)
Necro (WoD, Lingering, Weaken Knees, Toxic Chill, Vampiric Spirit, even ran into Tainted)
Ranger (BA/RtW/Flail, Melshot/RtW, Melshot/Apply, Escape/Apply, A large variety of R/Mo tiebreaker builds)
Paragon (Ran into some Searing Spike para with chest thumper, but that's it)
Monk (A large variety of smiter builds w/ Strength of Honor, Judge's, Signets, LoD or Ray of Judgment)

Backline:
WoH, RC, PnH, LS, even saw some LoD and SoD as well
Nonelite changes can vary in hex/condi removal, inclusion or exclusion of AoS, PS, consideration for smite signets even.
/E, /W secondaries for the most part, Aegis or Stances

Runners:
Mainly a variety of Rt/A's (Caretaker's, Hidden Caltrops, different spirits and support heal/dmg), though there have been Monks and even Searing Flames eles in the mix here

Here's the best part: This is just a list of viable traditional (front/mid/back-line) builds I've seen on obs over the last week, and only in GvG. I haven't seen sinsplit but I was told that it's still alive and kicking. Necrospike regrettably still exists, so does heroway, and let's not forget K E N T O S A U R U S's characteristic build.

Once you expand your definition of playable character builds to HA, TA, AB, RA, even PvE, it expands ever more and it gets to be that even really bad builds are fun to play with and against, while still having a chance to win or lose.

Pretty much every class is represented in what's possible to play, many in lots of different forms (mesmer, monk, necro, warrior comes to mind), because it's what people wanted.

Paragons are pretty much out of the question, and if you consider the entire last year's outcry against paragons, it's no surprise at all.

So essentially, the meta is a culmination of player input, and this clash and disagreement is, actually, a sign of decent balance.

IMMORTAlMITCH · Feb 16, 2009, 09:41 PM // 21:41

Just because people run it, doesn't mean it's viable.

Paragons are mostly out of play atm because turret rangers are superior in just about every way, not so much because some paragon stuff got nerfed.

lutz · Feb 17, 2009, 12:11 AM // 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

Frontline:
Axe PR
Hammer (Dev-Rigor, Dev-Cunning, Magehunter)
Sword (PR),
PalmStrike (Not too popular but it's still around even when not part of Sinsplit)

Midline:
Eles (BSurge)
Rits (Caretaker's stand rit. This is ONE build.)
Me/E Water mesmer with some kind of elite.
Me/Rt (PBlock, ESurge, VoR)
Necro (WoD, Lingering, Weaken Knees, Toxic Chill, Vampiric Spirit)
Ranger (BA and Melshot. Split and non-split variants)
Paragon (What kind of retarded, ragey guild runs paragons?)
Monk (A smiter with LoD or Ray. That's about it.)

Backline:
WoH, RC, PnH, LS
Nonelite changes can vary in hex/condi removal, inclusion or exclusion of AoS, PS, consideration for smite signets even.
/E, /W secondaries for the most part, Aegis or Stances

Runners:
Mainly a variety of Rt/A's (insert elite damage skill or snare), Weapon of Warding, (insert heal skill), Protective was Kaolai, (insert speed boost), (insert damage/support skill)
or, E/Rt Searing Flames

^ fixed
Seeing a guild run something retarded doesn't mean it works.

Keep in mind most of these builds only work well in combination with another build. So all in all, you really only have 5-6 truly different builds:

Dual Ranger
Rawrspike
Euro hex
Cookie spike
Bloodspike

pah01 · Feb 17, 2009, 12:40 AM // 00:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

However, when you begin to understand that tweaking skills in a video game is nothing even remotely close to cleaning hotels, you can proceed.
I'm not here to insult you, nor you me, so let's get that out of our systems first.

Of course they are completely different things.

But I only made the comparison because the problem with izzy is the same as with an incompetent person in any other job.

And obviously the comparison of using a different job to make that point escaped you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

First off, the fact that game balance is entirely subjective is, in fact, extremely relevant, because there is very little distinction between what's marginally good and marginally bad in changing skills around.
It's a massive matter of opinion, whether you believe it is or not.
As far as simply awful changes, there's examples like Mark of Insecurity recently, and a handful of bad ones in the past, but don't think that he wasn't warned about these gems beforehand.

I don't mind too much about marginally bad and marginally good skill changes. I care about when he repeatedly makes bad skill decisions again and again.

If he was warned about the awful ones why did he not listen? The fact that he didn't listen means that the excuse of not eneogh time to balance guildwars doesn't fly. It means he thinks he can still balance the game without listening. The problem then is he is suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

Brief look at the fact of the matter: Everyone will be able to play everything at any given time, and have an equal opportunity to win... unless they choose not to.
Thus, unlike WoW balance, you can't really screw over someone because they've been playing and raiding with their 1 main character, spending months getting gear for it only to have their talent spec nerfed to the ground.
The only failure you can have is killing off variety, and we've seen some dark times with that in the past, but right now it is, surprisingly, not that bad.
Here's what I've seen so far

No you can have serious failures killing of mesmer like effects from the game, which are the third layer of guildwars. Shutdown is one of those things that makes gw skillful and interesting, rather than just spike spike spike until u get a kill.

You can have serious failures with individual skills that anybody should be going wtf to. Even joebobmickeypvedudewithnofreakingidea should know not to buff mark of insecurity to the level it was buffed to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

Once you expand your definition of playable character builds to HA, TA, AB, RA, even PvE, it expands ever more and it gets to be that even really bad builds are fun to play with and against, while still having a chance to win or lose.

It doesn't because HA and TA are effected even more than gvg when it comes to skill balance. HA problems (because of stupidly designed objectives) are only exacerbated by bad skill balances. TA shows where certain skills are way over the top only because of it being a 4v4 format. I believe that if something is badly broken in TA its only not so bad in GvG because of other constraints and redundancy weakening this particular skill, this doesn't mean however that it isn't broken. WoD is a great example of this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

Pretty much every class is represented in what's possible to play, many in lots of different forms (mesmer, monk, necro, warrior comes to mind), because it's what people wanted.

Paragons are pretty much out of the question, and if you consider the entire last year's outcry against paragons, it's no surprise at all.

So essentially, the meta is a culmination of player input, and this clash and disagreement is, actually, a sign of decent balance.

Except its the wrong kind of skillbars. Things like Primal Rage, Fc Water, Turrets etc should never be in existence in the first place.

Joe

scruffy · Feb 17, 2009, 01:01 AM // 01:01

physical damage gets buffed
people take more defensive characters to compensate
its harder to shut down more defensive characters effectively

shutdown being less effective across multiple defensive characters combined with the fact that they dont do enough damage and dont have enough defense to keep up with the meta, makes them useless in gvg

why shut people down when you can produce 600 damage + deepwounds roughly every 10 seconds or so, and have skills like rend rigor mortis and other defense ignoring gateways to get your damage in

important: rend and rigor mortis are not the culprit here, its the massive damage output that modern builds are able to do in such small timeframes that make skills like them dangerous.

Asplode · Feb 17, 2009, 03:37 AM // 03:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMMORTAlMITCH

Just because people run it, doesn't mean it's viable.

Okay, well if they win with it against a premier Euro guild, it's viable, right?

In that case, the R/D scythe, Apply Poison ranger is GvG-viable, seeing as how Societies Outcasts seems to have found success with it.

diabiosx · Feb 17, 2009, 03:46 AM // 03:46

I think everyone agrees that there should be more viable builds than what we see now.

make a runner class that is equally as good as the rts.

gogogo!

moriz · Feb 17, 2009, 04:15 AM // 04:15

the problem with guildwars game balance is not all about the skills, but because there's a complete lack of built-in counters.

let's look at an extremely simplified example: a warrior vs a complete melee shutdown caster.

what can the warrior do? well, nothing. it is entirely possible to make a caster that can completely shutdown the standard melee templates. while these casters are severely gimped against anything other than melee, there's absolutely nothing a melee can do when facing against such a caster (the melee can rely on teammates, but we're talking about 1v1 here).

now let's expand this to a standard 8v8 situation. there are now 8 people on each team, and far more variables than the 1v1. however, the same situation can occur here also. one team can gain a gigantic, and potentially unconquerable advantage over the other, and there's nothing the other team can do about it.

what guild wars needs, is a UNIVERSAL counter of sorts that's available to everyone, but with limits on how much it can be used. i personally believe that there should be a way to swap a skill once certain objectives are fulfilled. this is somewhat similar to the "side deck" in magic:the gathering. since gvgs are not determined by best of threes, this side deck has to be accessed in battle once certain objectives are fulfilled (player kills, morale boosts, etc).

by giving everyone universal counters, powerful skills like mark of insecurity, primal rage, etc can exist, simply because there will always be counters available.

Master Fuhon · Feb 17, 2009, 04:20 AM // 04:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asplode

First off, the fact that game balance is entirely subjective is, in fact, extremely relevant, because there is very little distinction between what's marginally good and marginally bad in changing skills around. It's a massive matter of opinion, whether you believe it is or not.

I don't know where you got this from, because the word balance frequently gets used in the sciences. By nature, something that belongs to the sciences is supposed to be objective. I understand that there is an entire semantic game that people play where they talk about builds being balanced and gimmick (which is explainable also, if need be), but personal definitions of words have nothing to do with 'game balance' as a whole.

If you are trying to make things out to be more subjective, I think that's the first step in the wrong direction on this matter. Work with what little consensus you have first in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_balance

Quote:

A game would be called unbalanced if one or more players have an unfair advantage over the others.

A more complex definition of game balance that critics have described is that, when players have multiple options or routes to victory, most or all of these options are about equally effective or feasible. To be perfectly balanced, each of these options would have to be strategically identical (in which case they wouldn't be substantial choices at all). In a game where various options (such as armies in a real-time strategy game, fighters in a fighting game, or character classes in a role-playing game) have significant qualitative differences between them, the game is balanced if the options are roughly equally likely to lead to success despite their differences. In a suitably balanced game, players would make such choices based on their personal preference, strengths, and playing style, rather than on an inherent advantage in one option. If one option were weaker than the others, then it would rarely be selected by any player and will not contribute to the complexity of the game.

When trying to create a complex or strategically rich game, game designers typically strive to maintain balance by using a careful selection of game mechanics, while offering the greatest possible number of these options, which in turn increases the difficulty of balancing the game. Balanced games are generally more enjoyable, and are considered better-made, than unbalanced ones.

It even gives a definition to make claims on whether a game is as complex or strategically rich as another based on the number of equal options available. That even removes the subjectivity out of the fun category too. If you want to make a game fun for more people, you do not make it more of one way, you make it less of that way.

If people think a game is already fun, you do not create a redundancy of the same options that were previously considered fun. Because those options are already fun, and you don't need more of them because they already provide an opportunity for success and people are already enjoying them. You make a game more fun by making the game more complex/strategically rich so that different kinds of people find it to be more fun, and so that when people get bored they have other things to do (and all those things are equally balanced).

The only point of subjectivity is what can be described as game mechanics or non-game mechanics. This is the whole contention of spike and build wars vs whatever else people want to run. I think build wars is a game mechanic. I think spike overpowering other builds was not, because there were skills that were designed to prevent spikes from getting through, and because there were other skills designed to create windows of opportunity for damage (kd and shutdown).

This is an objective balance issue: We are at a point where spikes can overpower healing capacity, as long as the spikes find a way to negate prots. The balancing aspects would either be to further increase healing capacity (probably a bad idea) or to decrease the ability of spikes to ignore prots (which I would prefer over reducing damage). I think as long as the skills that allow this are balanced, the game would be in better shape.

Asplode · Feb 17, 2009, 04:39 AM // 04:39

Let me attempt to see Guild Wars from your perspective, if you'll accommodate me.

How many builds should be viable, and what build should beat what other build, ideally?
What is the build that you envision to be winning mATs, in a balanced game?
What kind of character templates deserve to be popular, and what should be relegated to niche-build positions?