Curse

pah01 · Apr 19, 2007, 02:16 PM // 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surena

That article would be a waste of time, I am amazed what impact a game can have on people's minds that their thinking goes against any intelligent rules of running a business.

Anet is on a better path right now with more frequent updates. Removing anything non-core would kill the product, hurt the reputation not only in the community but throughout the whole industry. Got nothing to do with balls, nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ME, THATS RIGHT ME

If ANET removed the four new classes from PVP and limited PVP to only the original core 6 classes would they lose money?

No.

In fact if they did that they could go back to releasing their stand alone chapters with retarded classes for the PVE carebears while only introducing a few problems into High end PVP with new core skills. Then after 2 weeks or so the game could have a balance update of the core skills and we would be back to a stable balanced metagame.

The reason for this is two fold.

1. The core classes concepts and mechanics are not game breaking in themselves. In fact even soul reaping is not so bad without rit spirits being spammed. This means upon release of any new chapter it is easier to balance the core classes.
If there is a really broken skill for one of the core classes you can simply make it a "PVE" only skill. These kinds of skills will now exist due to GW/eotn.

2. Gimmicky broken mechanics from broken classes will no longer exist ie teleportation, chants, shouts (except a few warrior ones), spirits, weapon spells. This means that all of this crap will not hinder balancing the core classes skills when the new chapters come out.

This will go a long way towards mollifying PVP and PVE.

PVE get new content/classes and stuff and they will buy some carebears for ANET.

PVP wont have to put up with broken classes and then we will have a much more stable and balanced metagame. Competitve GVG play will start to rock. Maybe players who have left because ANET released broken stuff might even come back.

Last but not least doing this will not only solve the PVP balance problems in one fell swoop but allow ANET to do the one thing that is most important. MAKE MONEY from new expansions - because who knows GW2 might be 3-4 years way and not 2.

The problems with the new classes are grouped under these three headings IMO. I want to call attention to some excellent posts made by forum members about the assasin class.

1. The assasin does not reward player skill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Competitive games need to be balanced based primarily on rewarding player skill.

See his posts in this thread page s4 to 7.
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10141707

2. The most powerful assasin skillbars are gimmicky.

See Blame the Monks post.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...49&postcount=1

3. The assassin offers broken mechanics.

Teleportation
Combos with more than one dual attack - "Solo Spiking"

This could be done with the ritualist - there is an excellent post by ensign detailing how gimmicky the ritualist is. The static defence and irremovable weapon spells are a concept that removes player skill from the game.

This could be done with the dervish - Avatars are a retarded concept. A weapon that crits higher than hammer is pointless because the drawbacks are removed by avatars. The very existence of Melandru forces one to use hexes instead of conditions for melee control because of the probability of facing them. Dervish promotes build wars rather than player skill.

Paragon offers way too much static defence to be a part of a balanced game rewarding player skill. The concept of a spearchucker for DPS is in itself not so bad but the rest of the class is so badly broken with chants and shouts that cannot be removed that this class shouldnt see play.

Joe

icedwhitemocha · Apr 19, 2007, 03:51 PM // 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skuld

They should do that just to see GWO's reaction

QFT

I'd pay money to see their reaction... well almost.

Michael Dennis · Apr 21, 2007, 10:11 PM // 22:11

I think its a wonderful idea to only run core classes and only use skills and secondary from those core professions! Honestly i wish it was straight up old school. I'm pretty sick of seeing these new bull**** classes run around, it takes away from tactics, and makes pl lazy mother*******

HolyHawk · Apr 21, 2007, 10:30 PM // 22:30

I agree on the first one, but if jade and burning are removed, then imperial and frozen should be as well. I sorta of like imperial, I find it quite balanced. I still wonder why it has gate locks that don't work.

On number 2, I'd have to disagree. Looking in the way squidget and some others, new classes contributed to the core classes in different ways, good and bad. Think of soul reaping and spirits, manufactured energy. Think of teleport, map abuse. However dark escape and return took part in releasing monk's secondary class to mesmer. Rts restoration skills fit really well in a elementalist runner, giving him strong utility and defense potential; dervishes have a strong attribute that is not often used, but I do think it will come into the spotlight eventually, and paragons can be an alternative of dps in a midliner. If you want to put it in another way, the classes are here already, it's been screwed up, no point going back. But I do think that nf/core, proph/core and fac/core tourneys would be really fun, and reward player skill.

Seamus Finn · Apr 22, 2007, 06:41 AM // 06:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHawk

I agree on the first one, but if jade and burning are removed, then imperial and frozen should be as well. I sorta of like imperial, I find it quite balanced. I still wonder why it has gate locks that don't work.

I honeslty don't see much relation between frozen and imperial. Though imperial doesnt have a thief like frozen, collapses are incredibly easy to pull off for an 8 man team in imperial.

HolyHawk · Apr 22, 2007, 07:07 AM // 07:07

I think they are similar because both do not require thief and are pretty big. You can cross the middle from any position, and recall splits are kinda cheap there (well, they are anywhere). Frozen is a little more elaborated because it has the slow effect on ice, and gate switches, but when I was thinking about size, mostly. To sum up, first 2 strongly incentive 8x8 combat, while the later 2 potentialize splitting. I believe maps should allow both of them as tactical decisions, where both are fair, and not when one is a lot better than the other.

Seamus Finn · Apr 22, 2007, 07:44 AM // 07:44

Umm yeah as I said. Imperial is actually more of an 8v8 map. The ice on frozen along with lever rooms and alternating paths allow more mobile small groups to snare kill and avoid larger teams while constantly threatening gank. Imperial doesn't. The bases are much harder to infiltrate due to archer placement and as I said before, the large square-like map allows 8 man teams to quickly fall on enemy gankers without threatening morale. It really is more of an 8v8 map than many think it is. If i were running a set split I could think of many maps i would chose above imperial.

Signet Of Hell · Apr 22, 2007, 06:46 PM // 18:46

Like it has been said, theres no need to take the imbalanced characters out of competitive gameplay, just balance them(omg sorry anet, I'll try to use words inside of your vocabulary). Balancing the skills/professions is the only thing needed, and anet doesn't want to balance skills because it'll be admitting they did a bad job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by red orc

I can't stop wondering what makes 20 years old talk and act like they are 80: "I remember the good old times", "kids nowadays..." and so on.
Maybe you should stop playing GW for a while, tour the world, go to india, to the far east, got to east europe, go to africa, go to anywhere you cant find your favorite burger. When you'll return you will be more open to changes.

This is exactly why they think they can say "I remember the good old times" and "kids nowadays".

Thomas.knbk · Apr 22, 2007, 07:34 PM // 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Signet Of Hell

This is exactly why they think they can say "I remember the good old times" and "kids nowadays".

Or maybe because 'old' is pretty relative, and you could call 2 years ago 'the old times' when you talk about Guild Wars.
I don't know about the 'kids nowadays' though. I've never seen anyone on this forum say that tbh.

STINGER · Apr 23, 2007, 03:36 PM // 15:36

I would be interested in all these possibilitys

Proph only
Nightfall only
Factions only
Open play
Restricted Open (all 3 games restricted)
Build restrictions (no more than 2 of any primary)
...etc

Basically anything that might be interesting and easier to balance than "open play" but we do need to still have open play.

Signet Of Hell · Apr 24, 2007, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by STINGER

I would be interested in all these possibilitys

Proph only
Nightfall only
Factions only
Open play
Restricted Open (all 3 games restricted)
Build restrictions (no more than 2 of any primary)
...etc

=/ you mean different sets of PvP for each chapter? That sounds retarded, and it wouldn't work at all. Forgive me if I read incorrectly.

Elrodien · Apr 24, 2007, 11:06 AM // 11:06

I like the idea of special tournements with restricted skill sets and this might happen when the ATs get up and running, but the idea to remove the factions and nightfall professions permanently from pvp is not a good one. The assassin and rit have become integrated into the gvg game already, the dervish even more so and the paragon perhaps less so but still there. The game would feel it would be lacking something if these skills were removed.

I believe its better to look forward than back, accept that the new proffessions are here to stay and get on with it.

In my humble opinion, gvgs aren't any less fun than they were pre-factions, but then I'm a scrub who plays gvg coz I enjoy them, not to get into the top 100

Divinus Stella · Apr 24, 2007, 11:23 AM // 11:23

Warriors/Wizards isle with 2 teams running standard balanced builds is as good as GvG gets, pushing between NPC's at the stand, keeping track of ganking teams, catapult control and NPC delay at VoD and blocking gateways for lord zergs, both 8v8 and gank builds have good choices unlike the rest of the maps.

Any change to GvG that gets it closer to that is good, i cant imagine many scenarios where a paragon, assassin or dervish are welcome in that style of play.

Ritualists do have good uses, if only for flag running/gank support.

Seamus Finn · Apr 24, 2007, 05:44 PM // 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divinus Stella

Warriors/Wizards isle with 2 teams running standard balanced builds is as good as GvG gets, pushing between NPC's at the stand, keeping track of ganking teams, catapult control and NPC delay at VoD and blocking gateways for lord zergs, both 8v8 and gank builds have good choices unlike the rest of the maps..

Rest of the maps? Oddly, hunter's(edited to keep me from looking too dumb) is a near clone of those two, but I think that many maps offer a relatively "balanced" fight. I prefer those that give a slight edge to splitting options since it can bring out the creativity in making/running a balanced build. Basically the two maps I think are terrible are:
jade isle
corrupted isle
Any other map at least gives the visitor a chance to not play the opponent's game. But I really can't agree that cata maps are the pinacle of balanced(my guild is currently on Wizard's though, but more out of build switching everynight than because it is so wonderfully supportive of a balanced build).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divinus Stella

Any change to GvG that gets it closer to that is good, i cant imagine many scenarios where a paragon, assassin or dervish are welcome in that style of play.

Ritualists do have good uses, if only for flag running/gank support.

This stuff is basically in direct conflict with my experience. At least the times I play, I would say paragons are more prevalent in top 100 "balanced" builds than any of the others(in response to an earlier post I am too lazy to quote), but I do believe there are templates in every new class that could be useful in a balanced build.

Divinus Stella · Apr 24, 2007, 06:57 PM // 18:57

Not all of the maps are bad, im just saying that those 2 are the best, druids is better for splits that most but still a fun map.

pah01 · Apr 26, 2007, 11:14 AM // 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Divinus Stella

Warriors/Wizards isle with 2 teams running standard balanced builds is as good as GvG gets, pushing between NPC's at the stand, keeping track of ganking teams, catapult control and NPC delay at VoD and blocking gateways for lord zergs, both 8v8 and gank builds have good choices unlike the rest of the maps.

Any change to GvG that gets it closer to that is good, i cant imagine many scenarios where a paragon, assassin or dervish are welcome in that style of play.

Ritualists do have good uses, if only for flag running/gank support.

I agree with the first part. Balanced on the catapult isles is about as good as gvg gets.

As far as the new classes adding some good things to gvg i agree that some of the things have been ok. Dark escape has been a good thing for monks - however i think that return removed an element of skill from play.

Th weapon of remedy ritualist with elementalist hexes is not a bad thing either. The problem is that the few good things that those classes have brought is largely outweighed by the broken and stupid shit they brought as well.

Since few people have expressed an interest in this type of tournament i will let it go for now.

I dont know who said this but it really clarifies the way i think about builds.

To paraphrase

"Build should be like races in warcraft, they should be a reflection of playstyle and personal preference rather than a real factor in who wins an encounter"

I think the new classes are always going to make builds a factor in winning and so i advocate their removal from high end pvp.

Joe

deadmonkey4u · Apr 26, 2007, 05:29 PM // 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus Finn

Rest of the maps? Oddly, hunter's(edited to keep me from looking too dumb) is a near clone of those two, but I think that many maps offer a relatively "balanced" fight.

Don't totally agree with ya on hunter being a near clone of warriors/wizards. Id have to say it leans a bit on the side of favoring splits. VoD is a bit of a pain as well due to it can be a bit difficult defending npcs as well as the vine seed gank depending on their build.

Seamus Finn · Apr 26, 2007, 06:06 PM // 18:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadmonkey4u

Don't totally agree with ya on hunter being a near clone of warriors/wizards. Id have to say it leans a bit on the side of favoring splits. VoD is a bit of a pain as well due to it can be a bit difficult defending npcs as well as the vine seed gank depending on their build.

Hunter's is the third cata map. It is a clone other than the fact that the defending team has a path to both gates. I originally had typed druid's but then realised I was stupid and meant hunter's. You are referring to druid's here.

deadmonkey4u · Apr 26, 2007, 07:45 PM // 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus Finn

Hunter's is the third cata map. It is a clone other than the fact that the defending team has a path to both gates. I originally had typed druid's but then realised I was stupid and meant hunter's. You are referring to druid's here.

oops meant druids im a dumbass. Dee Dee Dee

Matt CAPS · May 17, 2007, 04:55 AM // 04:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzan

I agree. I'll go a step further and say that the only 3 maps should be Warriors, Hunters and Wizard's Isles.

so just warriors hunters and wizards isle huh? yeah lets run the SAME MAPS they are the same thing except for appearance and on 1-2 theres a path through the middle