Curse

Riotgear · Oct 18, 2007, 11:38 PM // 23:38

GW's balance roots come more from trading card games like MTG and real-time strategy games. RTS races are the best prototype for a working "varied" balance, where there are several different play styles available where none is particularly dominant over the other. Like RTSes, the goal is the same: To help players pick something that fits well with their style of play, so they can be challenged based on their ability to play strategically without fighting the game mechanics.

moriz · Oct 18, 2007, 11:39 PM // 23:39

chess, as many have already pointed out, is innately unbalanced in that white will always have an advantage over black, because of the turn based restriction. this problem is unavoidable and simply cannot be fixed.

gw, on the other hand, is innately balanced because this problem does not exist. any balance issues are caused strictly by implementation. if change every guild hall so they essentially mirror the two bases, and have everyone run the same builds, GW is completely balanced. you cannot do the same with chess.

i agree that you can draw parallels between chess and GW because they are both competitive games. however, saying that total balance is not important in GW, because chess does not have it, is incorrect.

Greedy Gus · Oct 18, 2007, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

chess is turn based. GW is a RTS and FPS combination. a competitive turn-based game will never be the same as a competitive game in real time. comparing the two is kinda pointless.

Two things don't have to be "the same" for comparisons to take place. If any interesting insights at all can be drawn from such comparisons, they're meaningful enough, nothing more. There's no point to your stubborness.

moriz · Oct 18, 2007, 11:45 PM // 23:45

read my above post

moriz · Oct 18, 2007, 11:52 PM // 23:52

i don't ever remembering reading somewhere that i'm not allowed to change my opinion. my original post was not specific enough, so wrote up another one to clarify.

instead of trying to attack me, try actually contributing something.

Lorekeeper · Oct 19, 2007, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

however, saying that total balance is not important in GW, because chess does not have it, is incorrect.

who said that?

whenever i use chess as a metaphor for balance, i do it because in chess, matches are largely decided by the skill levels of the players, just because white goes first does not mean a 14 year old can beat a 40 year old grandmaster. (although i think some child prodigies have done just that... but i dunno if it was because they were playing white

)

chess has just that 1 variable that stops it from being a perfectly balanced game.

guild wars has hundreds and hundreds of variables which need balancing.

if it can achieve balance between viable options it *could* possibly be more balanced than chess. But achieving perfect balance between so many skills and classes is practically impossible, especially at the rate at which things were added to the game. It would have been far easier to achieve balance between the original set of skills before adding new ones... however it did not happen this way and what imbalances existed in the original set of skills and classes only got multiplied by the addition of new skills and new classes.

the difficulty in balancing the entire set of skills and classes probably resulted in what we see now, game balance being narrowly focused to favouring certain aspects over others resulting in a lower number of viable builds and therefore decreasing the number of things needing balancing.

pushing the meta towards certain things, like hexes or physicals or conditions also helps to reduce the amount of balancing work needed since the only balancing needed is with regards to hexes and their removal... or conditions and their removal. If anet truly tried to balance the entire game... to make as many possible options viable... it would be impossible. By the time we reached Nightfall plans for GWII were probably reaching development stage... (perhaps even as early as Factions.) and true balance just didnt appear on the agenda. Meta driven balance yes... just not complete balance.

TheOneMephisto · Oct 19, 2007, 12:17 AM // 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

who said that?

whenever i use chess as a metaphor for balance, i do it because in chess, matches are largely decided by the skill levels of the players, just because white goes first does not mean a 14 year old can beat a 40 year old grandmaster. (although i think some child prodigies have done just that... but i dunno if it was because they were playing white

)

chess has just that 1 variable that stops it from being a perfectly balanced game.

guild wars has hundreds and hundreds of variables which need balancing.

if it can achieve balance between viable options it *could* possibly be more balanced than chess. But achieving perfect balance between so many skills and classes is practically impossible, especially at the rate at which things were added to the game. It would have been far easier to achieve balance between the original set of skills before adding new ones... however it did not happen this way and what imbalances existed in the original set of skills and classes only got multiplied by the addition of new skills and new classes.

the difficulty in balancing the entire set of skills and classes probably resulted in what we see now, game balance being narrowly focused to favouring certain aspects over others resulting in a lower number of viable builds and therefore decreasing the number of things needing balancing.

pushing the meta towards certain things, like hexes or physicals or conditions also helps to reduce the amount of balancing work needed since the only balancing needed is with regards to hexes and their removal... or conditions and their removal. If anet truly tried to balance the entire game... to make as many possible options viable... it would be impossible. By the time we reached Nightfall plans for GWII were probably reaching development stage... (perhaps even as early as Factions.) and true balance just didnt appear on the agenda. Meta driven balance yes... just not complete balance.

I think that people are pushing this chess metaphor a little too much. Chess isn't necessarily what is best for GW, as GW needs to utilize the variety that it offers to at least some extent.

As I've stated, one of the best comparisons to make is to Starcraft or any similarly balanced RTS. If you compare the playstyles of each of the races, they are radically different, with different mechanics, costs, strategies, strengths, etc. However, in competitive matches you still see all of them represented and there isn't any really noticeable advantage in various match-ups, no matter the match-up, skill is still the largest factor.

Achieving something similar would be my ideal form of balance in GW. Various team-build templates, such as hexes, condition-pressure, split, and regular balanced, would be analogous to the different races. The key to it all would be that each of the viable templates would all have their useful counters to the other, with most of the counters being skill-based and versatile, depending on the player to correctly use them. Even though each build would have its different strengths and weaknesses, the key to games would be using your counters in an effective manner and maneuvering your opponent so that you can take advantage of your strengths and their weaknesses, dictating the game in your favor.

Of course, the team-build templates wouldn't be set, but would just represent the standard ideas of the build. Some variations could be made to each build based on personal preference, such as running bull's instead of dblow or even running a hammer instead of a sword, and some variations could be made in attempts to out-guess what opponents would use in serious tournaments, stuff like running HEV instead of surge or making one of the warriors more split-capable in anticipation of fighting split.

This may be hard to balance and create, and I'm not sure if ANet would even be able to do it with their track record. However, that's my ideal GW, a game where teams can choose their own templates according to their playstyles and modify them according to preference and their opponents/the meta, but where all the builds start out on a fundamentally equal level, with each build having enough versatile tools to deal with anything that is thrown at it.

erk · Oct 19, 2007, 02:16 AM // 02:16

Not sure if chess is a good analogy being a 1v1 "sport" perhaps soccer or some other team sport that most people know the rules of might be closer to GvG. Starcraft, well never played it or seen it played myself.

The problem I find with skill debate for 8v8 PvP, specifically GvG as I seldom play HA, is that the long time players are pretty naive, they tend not to think outside the square. eg. they would be horrified if it were suggested that frontline Warriors carry Shockwave as their elite for a +153 Earth damage addition to the spike, not that I have ever tried that and don't know how well it would actually work, the point being that the GvG team designers would only permit Warriors to carry Eviscerate or Dev Hammer, Cripslash etc. and that prejudice/lobbying is what pushes Anet over time to tweak skills in a certain direction. I know our team designer gets most of his ideas from observer mode. It wouldn't surprise me if Anet analyzed some stats and said that was a technique most guilds use to come up with team builds, rather than working them out from scratch to suit their players style/abilities.

I don't think Anet nerfed hexes out of the game as claimed/demanded by many, they got me over a thousand glad points and still going strong, it's just people can't be bothered working out useful hex team builds for GvG, above and beyond Diversion, Blurred, Shame or an occasional snare. Hopefully the balance will change from the physical/blockway current meta that I am totally bored with!

/EDIT I quite like the [dR] hex heavy build they were using today with 2 x Illusion Mes and a Water Ele.

Symbol · Oct 19, 2007, 02:35 AM // 02:35

TheOneMephisto:

Has that sort of balance already been achieved?

I mean we already see teams running "standard" balanced, condition pressure, hex overload, etc, successfully, everything except dedicated split.

Most of the pathological stuff has been hit, and the things that remain (melandru's, SP sins) aren't hurting the game all _that_ much.

Should the goal now be to (carefully) introduce more diversity into the game? Perhaps by buffing self heals to make splitting more viable, maybe some careful buffs to sin and derv utility, making more warrior elites playable, strengthening a few mes effects, etc?

Blame the Monks · Oct 19, 2007, 02:38 AM // 02:38

Overload is by definition not balanced.

Symbol · Oct 19, 2007, 02:42 AM // 02:42

Read the post I responded to.

arsie · Oct 19, 2007, 02:45 AM // 02:45

The way to gauge whether a game rewards skills or not is quite simple.

In a continuous competition environment, players are ranked based on whether they can beat the players in the next lower rank 60% of the time.
So Rank 10 players will be able to beat Rank 9 players 60% of the time, and so forth.

If the game results in many ranks, it is a game that is more about player skills. If the results are few ranks, then it is a game more dependent on luck.

Most chess-type games have many different ranks. But as permutations and situations are increased, you will see that there are less and less actual seperate ranks, as the game allows more and more lucky breaks.

The world top DotA players only win around 60% of the time.

Dzan · Oct 19, 2007, 11:31 AM // 11:31

The hardest part of adding "diversity" is that people will cry "buildwars." If hex builds, split builds, block web balanced, spike and condition builds are all good it will be impossible for any build to bring the tools to beat them all, and people will cry buildwars.

I find that odd how most people are opposed to the idea of winning the game in the build tab, but that is precisely where the game is won in games like Magic the Gathering to use the most frequent example. When Magic has a rock, paper, scissors metagame people are happy that there is balance. When guildwars has a rock paper scissors meta people are dejected that rock can't beat paper so the game is broken.

I suspect what people in GW really desire is for Balanced Builds to be Rock, and for Rock to be dominant over both paper and scissors, they definitely don't want diversity.

glountz · Oct 19, 2007, 11:46 AM // 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzan

The hardest part of adding "diversity" is that people will cry "buildwars." If hex builds, split builds, block web balanced, spike and condition builds are all good it will be impossible for any build to bring the tools to beat them all, and people will cry buildwars.

I find that odd how most people are opposed to the idea of winning the game in the build tab, but that is precisely where the game is won in games like Magic the Gathering to use the most frequent example. When Magic has a rock, paper, scissors metagame people are happy that there is balance. When guildwars has a rock paper scissors meta people are dejected that rock can't beat paper so the game is broken.

I suspect what people in GW really desire is for Balanced Builds to be Rock, and for Rock to be dominant over both paper and scissors, they definitely don't want diversity.

I think people want metagame that rewards skill.
That's not "if rock meet paper, and that I got pawned by paper, the game is broken" but rather "if rock meet paper, and that I got pawned by paper whereas I'm a lot more skilled than the team using paper, then the game is broken".

Kyp Jade · Oct 19, 2007, 12:42 PM // 12:42

What you really desire is

Im rock, crap I met paper, i changed tactics to look more like scissors.

Lorekeeper · Oct 19, 2007, 12:45 PM // 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by glountz

I think people want metagame that rewards skill.
That's not "if rock meet paper, and that I got pawned by paper, the game is broken" but rather "if rock meet paper, and that I got pawned by paper whereas I'm a lot more skilled than the team using paper, then the game is broken".

yes thats more or less it.

what basically happens is that you have the following choices. You can run a specialised build, conditions, hexes, split, etc etc and you will reap the rewards for that specialisation if you become good at the build. Conditions builds should require a certain amount of skill and experience to run... you should not be able to spread multiple layers of conditions without some level of skill involve, nor should you be able to shutdown an opponents condition removal without some skill involved. Things like the buffed keystone signet would have made shutting down elite condition removal like RC far too easy... which means losing to a team with this is not very fun nor is it very competitive since unless you are running something to specially counter it, you are at a significant disadvantage.

similiarly with hex builds, it should not be easy to pile multiple hexes all over the enemy team. Anti-melee hexes should be more active, used to prevent frontlines from doing any dmg when the need to reduce their dmg is high, you should not be able to shutdown a frontline perpetually without incurring serious energy issues. When you face a hex build you should not lose automatically because you dont have elite hex removal, you should have the opportunity to remove key hexes at the right moments to allow your offense a window where it can score a kill.. you should not have to fight a constant battle against the hex overload and degen especially if it is so easy to apply and so difficult to remove.

split builds should not have huge mobility advantages like the advantage you get if you run recall sins... or the shadow of haste sins in the past... splitting should take skill... and reward skill, rather than the fact you have a get of jail free card which allows you to jump in and out of danger at the simple click of a button.

specialisation should not be easy... and therefore it should be rewarding to those who get it right and can deal with the inherent weaknesses of specialised builds. Condition builds lose effectiveness if their ability to shutdown condition removal is countered... and if their frontlines cannot apply their pressure. Hex builds are highly vulnerable to pressure resets, especially if they push against a team that has just reset its pressure. Without its web of hexes in place a hex pressure team can collapse quite quickly.

basically balance in guild wars should prevent specialised builds from being too easy to play and therefore too effective.

with regards to the balance build, it should give teams a highly stable platform to work from, the balanced build should have access to more general tools which would allow it to tackle the diversity of builds it might face. The more direct counter skills we have, like divert hexes, expel hexes, extinguish etc etc, the harder it will be for a balanced build to adequately prepare for everything. Of course a balanced build would naturally find itself weak against a pure hex overload team, im talking 3-4 hexers with 1 frontliner. But in running such an overly specialised build they open themselves up to being onedimensional... in that they might be vulnerable to splits and/or have too many soft targets.

it should never be a case of rock paper scissors, like it is in magic the gathering. In MTG the cards speak for themselves, in guild wars the skills are only as good as the player using them... a ranger in a condition or balanced team isnt automatically a great addition to the team... ranger builds can be played amazingly and are highly useful when they are, but they can as easily be played poorly and as useless as a result.

if the game moves towards rock paper scissors type gameplay it means the outcome of matches is being taken away from player execution and given to the skills and builds instead, which means matches are decided even before the gates are opened.

a bad hex team should lose to a good balanced team
a good hex team should beat a bad balanced team
a good hex team should be equally matched with a good balanced team

assuming the balanced team had a modest amount of hex removal (and if people start running hexes... balanced teams should be bringing things like purge signet/convert/deny)

etc etc

the more direct counter like skills the balanced build needs to bring the worse balance in GW is going to get. To fight a condition build rc+draw+extinguish should be more than enough...similiarly to fight a hex build veil+deny+purge+mesmer and ranger interrupts should be enough.

against super heavy hex teams, well for one thing they are rare... and another thing, they are weak to splits and weak at vod. losing the odd match against one of these teams should nto faze anyone. and if they became dominant you would then have the environment to run direct counter skills like divert hexes, expel hexes etc etc.

Floski · Oct 19, 2007, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Quote:

against super heavy hex teams, well for one thing they are rare... and another thing, they are weak to splits and weak at vod.

What the hell? Hex teams are strong on splits. Send a curse necro back and watch them drop. Weak at vod? Reckless on a clump of archers, price on the frontline, migraine on monks, humility lod. It's gg. Heavy hex teams were neither weak on split nor weak at vod. They are weak to good disruption.

Winterclaw · Oct 19, 2007, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

chess, as many have already pointed out, is innately unbalanced in that white will always have an advantage over black, because of the turn based restriction. this problem is unavoidable and simply cannot be fixed.

Which is why the better of two players should usually be playing black. And black can force white to lose a turn and get the advantage back so it isn't like the advantage white starts with is insurmountable.

Master Ketsu · Oct 19, 2007, 06:20 PM // 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by glountz

I think people want metagame that rewards skill.
That's not "if rock meet paper, and that I got pawned by paper, the game is broken" but rather "if rock meet paper, and that I got pawned by paper whereas I'm a lot more skilled than the team using paper, then the game is broken".

This is pretty much it. That mentality is quite possibly "the" boundry line that divides "casual" type players and "pro" type players. And not just in GW, but in every game that can be played competitively.

In halo ce: No "pro" players cared that the pistol was the best weapon, because it took skill to use.

Starcraft: No "pro" players gave a damn about Defiler camping, because it took skill to pull off effectively.

Counter examples: Halo 2: Every Pro player in existance complained up a storm about Battle rifle/plasma combo. It was a combo that killed things just as fast as the halo 1 pistol, but everyone "pro" player hated it because unlike the pistol which required precise aim to pull off, The battler rifle/plasma combo required little to no skill to kill people with whatsoever.

The same thing can be found in GW. Very few good players complain about utility builds being good if they take skill to play. Migraine mesmers and certain interrupt ranger builds come to mind.

But when it comes to mindless builds like SP sins, the PvP community complained up a storm. Was the combo impossible to beat ? No, in fact a well timed condition removal followed by a basic heal could almost always negate it. But it encouraged a degenerative no-brains-no-skill-required 12345 playstyle, and thats what pissed us off.

Quicksilver Switch-Blade · Oct 19, 2007, 06:39 PM // 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorekeeper

a bad hex team should lose to a good balanced team
a good hex team should beat a bad balanced team
a good hex team should be equally matched with a good balanced team

assuming the balanced team had a modest amount of hex removal (and if people start running hexes... balanced teams should be bringing things like purge signet/convert/deny)

This is where I disagree, a specialized team (which instead of covering up its weaknesses, relies purely on its strength to beat a team, unlike balance which tries to cover up its weaknesses using strengths of other prof, thus the name balance, duh :P) should beat a balanced team most of the time even if the skill level of both teams is the same. If what you said was the case, why even take a specialized team if balanced will beat any specialized team if you have the same skill level. Balanced should be powerful against unskilled teams and someone said it best in calling it safeway (cant remember who, and I dont feel like trying to find who said it), you take flexibilty and versatility over being so lopsided as a specialized team. If balanced ever was equally matched with a specialized team, when both had the same amount of skill, balanced would truly not be balanced, it would be overpowered. Balanced should fit the name, jack-of-all-trades, master of none.