Originally Posted by Blame The Monks

As I read this week's State of the Game article and various unrelated flame threads on TGH, I realized many people -- including members of high ranked guilds -- did not know what a balanced build was. I thought it might be worth laying out for the community what exactly the term "balanced build" means as the term was historically used in GvG.

A Balanced Build is a Build that can Change Tactics

When people talk about a "balanced build" in GvG, it has nothing to do with skill balance or even with party composition. Perhaps the best way to think of balanced builds is to substitute in the word flexible for balance. Balance refers to the flexibility to switch tactics in a match. Traditionally, the "balance" refers to the balance between 1) Spike vs. Pressure; 2) 8v8 vs. Split; and 3) Defensive play vs. Offensive play.

Let me say that again -- simply because a team has two warriors, two monks, and four support does not make a team balanced. What makes a team balanced is the ability to adjust tactics.

Balance vs. Imbalance is a scale, a continum. On some level, every planned team build has a theme -- no team plans on doing everything equally well. Thus, there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced build. The point is not which theme a build is intended to use, but rather how well a build can adjust and to what extent a build allows tactical decisions to win games as opposed to simply relying on your prematch build and tactics. To get an idea of what I mean in terms of GvG, let's compare and contrast a shock axe warrior vs. a burst assassin.

Shock Axe Warrior (Balance) vs. Burst Ass (gimmick)

Ashock axe warrior (b strike, ESVIC, exe, shock, rush, frenzy, heal sig, res sig) has been a staple of the metagame for more than a year in part because it is highly flexible and effective. Esvicerate + Executioner makes an excellent spike, but this build is also reasonably effective in pure DPS. Likewise, it is effective in both team fights and in limited split duty. Finally, bstrike and shock provide disruption or utility that can be used to shut down the other team's defense, shut down their offense, or simply increase DPS. So although a shock axe warrior might go into a GvG planning to pressure targets out, if that didn't work out he could switch gears and begin adrenaline spiking, splitting, or even linebacking for VoD. The key is flexibility of build which translates to opportunities to win by making smart tactical plays.

By contrast, consider a standard ass burster (expose, SP, burst, bls, twist, bss, bos, res sig). Because of the nature of the combo system, the ass must devote almost his entire bar to unloading one combo. His combo cannot vary and if one hit fails, the combo fails and is worthless. Although the ass makes a great spiker, he is ineffective as pressure. Many asses don't attack at all in between combos, and those that do simply build up energy while they wait to spike. Likewise, the ass has no way to fight effectively in a split (no self-heals, movement control, etc). Finally, an ass has no way to effectively lineback or shutdown any part of another team. In short, because of the inherent setup of the build, the ass has only one tactical option avaiable -- it spikes. If the spike doesn't work, the ass cannot effectively switch to splits, pressure, or anything else. It must spike or lose.

This is why a burst ass is commonly viewed as a one dimensional gimmick while a shock axe warrior is commonly viewed as a balanced build. This generalizes to GvG builds as well.

Caster Spike vs. EuroSpike vs. Balanced Builds

Traditionally, the most imbalanced or gimmicky builds were caster spikes. A common example of this is oflame spike. These builds were imbalanced becuase they were the sum of their parts -- very few individual casters can effectively pressure and spike, much less split or adjust tactics otherwise. Caster spikes had one tactic and one trick only -- win or lose there was no tactical adjustment. However, this is not just limited to casters -- a team of 5 thumpers + 3 monks is equally imbalanced because the team can ONLY fight 8v8 as a pressure team.

More toward the middle, we have eurospike. Eurospike is largely dominated by a spike (and adren spike is in no way less gimmicky or imbalanced than a pure caster spike), it has more flexibility than oflame. Its warriors could split somewhat, it could generate marginal pressure, it could attempt to play defesnively and win at VoD, and so on. However, eurospike is NOT a true balanced build because it is heavily slanted to one tactic (spiking) at the cost of other tactics (split, pressure, etc).

Another sign of a gimmick is how they react to getting rolled. If a spike team gets rolled 8v8, they usually /resign. They resign because they know they have no other option to win -- either the one trick pony pwnys the opponets or you lose. By contrast, in a more balanced build if plan A fails (say for example a flagstand spike) the team will adjust and try something else, such as splitting.

So by definition, a balanced build is one that can vary tactics reasonably well. It is a build that can spike or pressure, split or 8v8, win at vod, play defensively if needed, and so on. In short, it is flexible. It has nothing to do with how many warriors you have. It has everything to do with what tactics you can run -- skill vs. build.

A balanced team can vary tactics based on the situation.
A gimmicky or imbalanced team relies on one powerful tactic to win.

A balanced team relies on each player knowing what tactic to use to win.
A gimmicky or imbalanced team usually only requires the team to execute (3,2,1 or hex spam, etc).

Each GvG as a balanced team is different as your tactics always vary.
Each GvG as a gimmicky or imbalanced team is very much the same as you always do the same things.

Why are Warriors so common in Balanced Builds?

This begs the question of why warriors are such a staple of balanced builds. The answer is simple -- warriors are by far the most flexible class in the game. Because of natural armor and heal signet, warriors are difficult to kill. This makes them naturally self sufficient without having to spend lots of resources and skill slots. This allows them to both split and fight 8v8 effectively. Warriors likewise can do solid DPS without needing lots of skill slots. Frenzy + 14 weapon mastery is enough to be an equalent DPS threat as almost any caster. However, Deep Wound gives warriors a very potent spike without compromising other areas. Finally, because of these other strengths warriors have the room to bring along utlity skills such as bull's strike, shock, and so on which can be used offensively or defensively. In short, a basic warrior can do just about anything reasonably well.

Compare this with asses (no pressure, limited synergy in groups, less survivable) and dervs (less spike ability, less survivable, less pressure...only a godmode push every two minutes). Even if the ass or derv may be better for a given build or tactic, overall they are far less flexible. All three are physicals, but only the warrior has the tools to adjust tactics.

This also carries over to casters and support -- toons that have the tools to effectively switch tactics are rare and those that can are staples of the metagame (water emos, burning rangers, dom mesmers). But fundamentally, its not about physical vs caster -- its just the fact that because of game design most physicals are more flexible than most casters. But this is not always true -- for example a dom mesmer is far more flexible than a burst assasin.

Why should Balanced Builds be prefered over imbalanced Builds?

So now that it should be clear what a balanced build is (IE, a flexible build), why do so many people think balance builds take more skill, are more fun, and should be encouraged? The answer is simple -- builds that are flexible win or lose more based on in-game tactical decisions and less on build. Likewise, most people enjoy the fun of outthinking the opponent, rather than just winning because your build was better.

But remember, balance is not an ideal that is better in of itself -- balance is better because it takes more individual tactical skill and decisionmaking. Flexiblity of build means nothing if your players aren't smart enough to know how to use the tools they have. This is why balance v balance almost always comes down to skill of the players involved, while imbalanced v. imbalanced plays so much like rock, paper, scissors.

Furthermore, because balance requires you to do many things well, you have to draw upon a broader set of correct plays. A spike requires you to be good at only one thing -- spiking 8v8. By contrast, a balanced build requires you to be good at many things -- you need to be able to spike, pressure, split, AND know when to do each. An inflexible or imbalanced build wins if the gimmick goes through (either by build advantage, map advantage, player skill, etc). If the single tactical option doesn't work, the team loses. By contrast, a balanced build wins when the individual players and the team as a whole can adjust the tactics of the build to make quality plays to get the win. This means that balanced players should learn more each game (as they learn better ways to use the flexibile tools they have) as well as gaining more experience in each type of play -- spike, pressure, split, etc. An imbalanced team only learns to do the same tactic over and over.

For these reasons from a game design perspective, balance SHOULD be the most powerful and most prevalent strategy -- because it takes the most player skill and is the most fun. This is also why gimmicks should not be able to overwhelm an average balance build -- when a team lacks the ability to adjust reasonably well to everything, it is forced to specialize and play R/P/S. For a tactical competitive game, this ruins much of the depth of the game.

Originally Posted by Drinky

...let the people run their best classes, have good communication...