Curse

intarwebs · Aug 25, 2007, 09:22 PM // 21:22

Hey, I just waked up this morning with a question popping up in my head. Everybody always talks about gimmicks and how they ruin the fun, and talking about how unfun it is to play them.

I can imagine why it isn't fun to play against a gimmicky build. But I wondered why it isn't fun to play a gimmicky build. Why is playing balanced soooo much more fun than playing a gimmick?

Thomas.knbk · Aug 25, 2007, 09:27 PM // 21:27

because beating an opponent by outplaying them gives you a better feeling than beating an opponent because they didn't bring a certain specific counter.

intarwebs · Aug 25, 2007, 09:32 PM // 21:32

Umm, aren't you basically saying that bringing the worst build is the most fun? (not trying to have a pointless argument, just curious)

Dzan · Aug 25, 2007, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Balanced isn't the worst build, its the best usually.

BlackEagle · Aug 25, 2007, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by intarwebs

Umm, aren't you basically saying that bringing the worst build is the most fun? (not trying to have a pointless argument, just curious)

The point is that you are winning because of skill, not because of build. But, at the same time, people play with a degree of competitiveness so they don't want to handicap themselves. Balanced is basically the strongest build that requires skill, as when played well it can beat anything.

Also, you can win a lot with balanced against anything, rather than getting annoyed to losing as your gimmick < their gimmick.

gimmethegepgun · Aug 25, 2007, 09:49 PM // 21:49

IMO being able to come up with a good build on your own is a modest substitute for playing skill

Relambrien · Aug 26, 2007, 12:48 AM // 00:48

It isn't fun to play a gimmick build because one of two things tends to happen when you do:

1) The enemy can't deal with it and they die quickly, which is boring.
2) The enemy either builds for the gimmick and destroys you quickly, or the enemy plays to the weaknesses of the gimmick and destroys you quickly.

With balanced, there are no glaring weaknesses since everything is covered. You can split, spike, pressure, you have plenty of defense, everything. Gimmicks generally only work one way, so often if you can exploit a weakness, the team folds.

As an example, omega spike (a.k.a. Be Team spike) can't split very well. It can defend a split somewhat, but can't split off in such a way as to force attackers out without sending all or most of the team back. It also can't split offensively.

Thus, if you could split 5/3 or 4/4 and stay alive against the spike, it's generally pretty easy to split off and wipe the base, forcing a turtle (assuming you can prot the spikes well enough).

That probably isn't the best example, but you get the idea. Games with gimmick builds generally result in one team having a big advantage for most of the game, so it gets boring.

Riotgear · Aug 26, 2007, 05:24 AM // 05:24

Most gimmicks consist of one of two things:
- A fragile, yet powerful offense propped up by thick defenses. It's boring to play because a significant amount of time is spent doing mundane crap like keeping the defenses flowing and performing tasks entirely coordinated by somebody else. Reaction required is minimal when there are two layers of defense between you and any reason to give a shit. It's boring to play against because spending most of the match trying to erode defenses just to make their house of cards fall apart is tedious.

- A powerful, one-dimensional offense with paper defenses. Boring to play because your offense barely has to think. Boring to play against because playing damage control for most of the match is tedious.

Regardless, people like the concept of a game that requires skill on the part of both teams, and rewards players based on it. I like to think of builds as ways for players to express their ability in a way that is comfortable to them, and a mechanism to open up the game to a variety of play styles. That's all they should be, not crutches to allow bad players to abuse the lack of counters to something with some one-dimensional overload build.

Servant of Kali · Aug 26, 2007, 06:01 PM // 18:01

I've noticed that a lot of people have their own definitions of "gimmick".

Generally speaking, I have a problem with copy-cutter gimmicks. I don't have a problem with a guild running their own unique gimmick. If it wins, good. If you don't have counter, bad for you. If the skill is simply blatantly overpowered and that's the problem - scream and ask for nerf.

I have a problem with both balanced and gimmick builds when they consist of copy-cuttering. Watching GvGs where 50 teams use the same "balanced" build is utterly boring and bad for the game. Today I saw a mesmer with Glyph of Renewal instead of MoR. I almost had an orgasm. Granted, I don't watch GvGs that often, but it's very refreshing to see someone trying out different stuff. It doesn't have to be totally unique, rare is good too.

intarwebs · Aug 26, 2007, 06:40 PM // 18:40

What's the definition of a gimmick then?

btw, I saw a signet of illusions mesmer in obs. Kinda surprised me

Div · Aug 26, 2007, 07:10 PM // 19:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by intarwebs

What's the definition of a gimmick then?

btw, I saw a signet of illusions mesmer in obs. Kinda surprised me

Everyone has a different definition. GANK ran the sig illu mesmer in their gimmick split.

TheOneMephisto · Aug 26, 2007, 07:36 PM // 19:36

Rock Paper Scissors isn't as fun as Guild Wars. That's why people hate playing/playing against gimmicks.

Teh [prefession]-zorz · Aug 26, 2007, 07:47 PM // 19:47

gimmicks take no skill, Example: Thumpers.

Easy to play, hard to beat, usually taking advantage of overpowered builds, aka R/P in HB.