Curse

wuzzman · May 30, 2007, 05:32 PM // 17:32

What type of metagame do you people want? Me personally, made a decision a long time ago to acknowledge anets inability to totally balance the game, neither do I really want it that way. Let me explain.

Lesson one balance and variety don't belong in the same sentence. You can look at any competitive game and there is general 1-3 strategies, builds, or decks, that can win you a majority of your games. In a fighting game, you can make 20 characters but at best, see only 5 used successfully in the semi-finals and maybe 1-3 in the finals. Balance, is never really an attempt to increase the amounts of builds, characters, or decks that can be used. But in fact an attempt to preserve the current/past metagame or to protect the prefered meta. Not to say nothing is imba or things don't need balancing, but balancing will always be centered around what is already accepted by the meta. This is inherently a stalemeta, nothing new comes in, nothing new is wanted in.

Why does this apply to Guild Wars? Its online mmorpg and Anet can constantly keep things in check. Back in the months before factions, the pvp community worried about a stale meta. The meta at that time was consitently balanced, with the following build being run for GvG;

2 shock/axe warriors
2 boon/prots
1 Ward/HP ele
1 Blind bot/hp ele(optinol)
1 or 2 e-surge mesmers
pick a flavors for the rest

The HA balance build(iway was popular but this was the meta build for HA balance teams) was;

2 shock/axe warriors
1 rc/prot
1 woh
1 Sb/infuse
1 Ward/hp ele
pick your flavors for the rest

Except for a few flavor builds, that is what dominated GVG and was 1/3 of HA teams. The winner of those matches were almost always the better team no question. Right now people say that the top guilds suck because all they run is gimmick builds, but 1 year ago, there was no question how good those players were when they ran the above balance build.

Now lets understand a little something. Most competitive games end up like this. 1 build/strategy is found that pwns all the lesser builds/strategies. It owns for a while, then something real funny happens. Someone finds the counter and owns the uber build/strategy. But then someone finds the counter to counter build, but that new build can't beat the orginal build. Rock, paper, scissors as we call it. Its a dreaded thing and most games usually end up into a glorified round of rock, paper, scissors in the end. People say that Guild wars is already rock,paper, scissors, but I concure.

Guild wars is scarier then rock, paper, scissors. Lets say that the community decides that there is only one build or build type that requires any real skill (hey that doesn't sound to off from what I hear now ). Lets call that build rock. And lets say a counter to that build was invented, paper. People who play rock, get real pissed off. There is no reason to play the counter to paper, scissors, because it will just get owned by rock. Why not just remove paper all together. Now rock the only thing that beats rock...is a better rock. This essentially the balance our community is reaching for now.

In all honesty, a lot of HA battles between two balance builds could have been won by simply typing this; /roll. I'm seriouse those battles would last 30 minutes long lol. In gvg it was only slightly better. Battles between similarly skilled players will last all the way to VoD. The winner of the match will be the one with the better VoD strategy. This was called skilled play. The current gvg balance build is;

2 warriors (pick your elite)
1 lod/infuse
1 rc/prot
1 burning arrow or broad head ranger
1 water ele
1 migraine mez
1 reapers mark necro

Except for the reapers mark necro this is the accepted balance play that the top players want to play (from what I keep hearing). Lets say that anet nerfed the necro hex's, people would run blindbot/warder instead, and then spend the next 4 weeks nerfing every gimmick build, till balance is the only valid build to play. The build above (minus the reapers mark necro, add the blindbot/warder) can truely determine which team is the better team. The game would be technically balance, the meta will be based on player skill not build. However the meta will be stale. Any new build discovered will have to be nerfed. Don't worry, most battles will last 20 minutes, but whoever has the best strategy for VoD will win. GVg will never be a total stalemate even if the meta is stale.

This may sound extreme. But lets face it, no one in this forum who really wants even close to balanced gameplay will be truely happy with Anets approach to the balance of the game. Anet values variety, when they balance, they are trying to stop the metagame from moving in a bad direction, while moving it in a healthy one. They don't want a stalemeta game, but variety and balance doesn't mix. If anet took the suggested approach to balance, how many people will play continue to play in a stale metagame over the one we have now? You can have a balance game, but it will be stale. Or you could have a game with plenty variety and combinations, but will have imba's here and there. Your choice, but you can't really have it both ways and be happy with anet ^_^.

Nekretaal · May 30, 2007, 05:57 PM // 17:57

Great Post.

I'll add that rock-paper-scissors is in fact a balanced game....

and that the community's preferred approach: nerf paper, so rock rules supreme... but then rebalance (nerf) the skills so that there is a new rock to play with every 3 months... this doesnt work so much either.

Lodurr · May 30, 2007, 07:07 PM // 19:07

I disagree. You can have it both ways. A good rock build should beat a paper build if the rock players are really better. Choosing your build isn't about trying to get autowins. You choose the build that suits you and your team's playstyle the best. That's what guides people's choice of character in fighting games, and superior play always has a chance to beat character selection.

Seamus Finn · May 30, 2007, 08:22 PM // 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

The current gvg balance build is;

2 warriors (pick your elite)
1 lod/infuse
1 rc/prot
1 burning arrow or broad head ranger
1 water ele
1 migraine mez
1 reapers mark necro

Except for the reapers mark necro this is the accepted balance play that the top players want to play (from what I keep hearing).

I commend all the typing but this part is wrong on many levels, the first being that this is not, to my understanding, a "balanced build." This is eurohex, considered the most flexible adn overpowered hex build in the game. Secondly, good players do not want to play the reapers necro OR the migraine. The true balanced of this meta would be what you listed, except a dom mes(pblock or mor) instead of the migraine and most likely a second water ele instead of the necro.

However, where your post is most mislead is simply in that the lack of diversity in builds is far more the player's fault than the game's(he game is actually more balanced than it has been in a while). Basically this version of a balanced build is developed and players copy the players that beat them with it. However, there are many alterations to this balanced that can play competitively. Keep the wars and the monks, and you can swap a lot of characters into the defining makeup of that build and the build will still be viable. Simply put, players have seen the build I mentioned work, so they play it and my guess is that they don't deviate from it because they don't really understand why it works as well as it does.

wuzzman · May 30, 2007, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodurr

I disagree. You can have it both ways. A good rock build should beat a paper build if the rock players are really better. Choosing your build isn't about trying to get autowins. You choose the build that suits you and your team's playstyle the best. That's what guides people's choice of character in fighting games, and superior play always has a chance to beat character selection.

the fact that paper can only be beaten by one hell of a rock doesn't mean people won't want to get rid of paper. Hey, it is the very reason why people would want to get rid of paper. As stated in the past "doesn't mean its beatable doesn't mean it's overpowered".

wuzzman · May 30, 2007, 09:16 PM // 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus Finn

I commend all the typing but this part is wrong on many levels, the first being that this is not, to my understanding, a "balanced build." This is eurohex, considered the most flexible adn overpowered hex build in the game. Secondly, good players do not want to play the reapers necro OR the migraine. The true balanced of this meta would be what you listed, except a dom mes(pblock or mor) instead of the migraine and most likely a second water ele instead of the necro.

However, where your post is most mislead is simply in that the lack of diversity in builds is far more the player's fault than the game's(he game is actually more balanced than it has been in a while). Basically this version of a balanced build is developed and players copy the players that beat them with it. However, there are many alterations to this balanced that can play competitively. Keep the wars and the monks, and you can swap a lot of characters into the defining makeup of that build and the build will still be viable. Simply put, players have seen the build I mentioned work, so they play it and my guess is that they don't deviate from it because they don't really understand why it works as well as it does.

oh I made it clear that anet gets the urge to swing the nerf bat from us. Most competitive games balances according to their player base. I find it silly that now 2-3 years later migraine is considered overpowered. Lol, the migraine mesmer is only able to do its job because the reapers mark necro and the water ele are hexing machines. While they are alternatives, they could either;
A. Next in line for the nerf bat
B. Like playing scissors against rock.

Blame the Monks · May 30, 2007, 09:55 PM // 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

Lesson one balance and variety don't belong in the same sentence.

Wrong. They can exist, its just very hard. SC achieved great balance and variety of strategy and had 3 races, a dozen or so component pieces, and solid mechanics. Was SC stale because there were only X units? HELL NO, because the strategy and competition was virtually endless.

GW added huge amounts of complexity to that -- in addition to having literally thousands of skills, 8 human players per team, and 64 skills per team, GW has varying map conditions. On top of that, many mechanics were abusable for competitive play and many of the skills were simply conceptually flawed. Think of it as trying to balance chess when you add 2 new pieces every 6 months, regularly change up the win conditions, and change the way pieces move constantly. Balance was overwhelmingly challenging from the start.

But that doesn't mean it was impossible, and within limited realms Izzy did a great job. Currently, the balance between mesmer, ranger, war, ele, and monk is pretty good. Its just the trash/button mashing classes -- sin, rit, para, derv, nec that RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO things up. The variety of strategy and build using only balanced pieces is pretty damn good and was more than enough to keep people interested for years. For example, I love the subtle meta that plays back and forth between top 20 teams, all of which run similar, but not identical, builds. Cow might pull out an extra physical, while MH focuses more on split, while EW adds in another defensive ele. All using similar builds, but the strategy is endless.

Where anet screwed up was in adding in too many skill types (many of which were uncounterable) and not providing broad, player skill based counters. This eventually overloaded the number of things a balanced team could counter and made r/p/s overwhelming to many players, even at the high end. As people got sick of losing based on build, not skill, they moved on.

The second thing they messed up was not realizing some skills/builds should never be used in competitive play. Melee necs, for example, simply should never get played. Neither should skillless spam skills like flare. But izzy thought they should, and rewarded stupid button smashing over skill based play. As button mashing your ass combo became equal to skillfully timing dshots, people lost interest.

Quote:

In all honesty, a lot of HA battles between two balance builds could have been won by simply typing this; /roll. I'm seriouse those battles would last 30 minutes long lol.

Your mistake is you think unless someone has a build advantage, the teams play to a stalemate. You couldn't be more wrong -- that's where tactics, communication, strategy, and skill come in. Don't believe me? Go scrim a friend's guild running the exact same bars. You will see wildly different results, and that's the skill in GW, not playing r/p/s.

I want a game based on teamwork, communication, and strategy, not build. Your whole argument is that this type of game isn't possible and you are dead wrong.

Ensign · May 30, 2007, 10:06 PM // 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

Lesson one balance and variety don't belong in the same sentence.

Yes they do. Starcraft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

In a fighting game

There are no patches, and thus are incapable of achieving anywhere near the kind of balance a game that recieves feedback does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

But in fact an attempt to preserve the current/past metagame

No. Competitive balance is an attempt to preserve or enhance the depth of gameplay in a competitive environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

Right now people say that the top guilds suck because all they run is gimmick builds

They say that the gameplay sucks, because depth of gameplay has given way for superficial variety in diverse, polarized, limited builds. That is balanced, but not in a way that befits a competitive game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

variety and balance doesn't mix.

Deep variety and balance mix very, very well. That combination is what makes a classic game.

What Arena.net has done is create a ton of very shallow variety, and not a lot of deep variety. That shallow variety gives us a lot of very different builds, but not ones with interesting gameplay consequences. When those strategies are strong, the game is stale, with hard RPS matchups and not a lot of engaging gameplay decisions.

The desire of the PvP community is for the shallow variety to be weakened to the point where only the deep variety is viable. Now, Arena.net screwed up badly on the design side of things and only a small fraction of the available skillspace is deep. However there are enough raw numbers of skills for there to still be a lot of variety even within that small fraction. They simply are not allowed to be realized at the moment due to the presence of too many powerful, shallow, polarized strategies.

Peace,
-CxE

wuzzman · May 30, 2007, 10:38 PM // 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ensign

Yes they do. Starcraft.

There are no patches, and thus are incapable of achieving anywhere near the kind of balance a game that recieves feedback does.

No. Competitive balance is an attempt to preserve or enhance the depth of gameplay in a competitive environment.

They say that the gameplay sucks, because depth of gameplay has given way for superficial variety in diverse, polarized, limited builds. That is balanced, but not in a way that befits a competitive game.

Deep variety and balance mix very, very well. That combination is what makes a classic game.

What Arena.net has done is create a ton of very shallow variety, and not a lot of deep variety. That shallow variety gives us a lot of very different builds, but not ones with interesting gameplay consequences. When those strategies are strong, the game is stale, with hard RPS matchups and not a lot of engaging gameplay decisions.

The desire of the PvP community is for the shallow variety to be weakened to the point where only the deep variety is viable. Now, Arena.net screwed up badly on the design side of things and only a small fraction of the available skillspace is deep. However there are enough raw numbers of skills for there to still be a lot of variety even within that small fraction. They simply are not allowed to be realized at the moment due to the presence of too many powerful, shallow, polarized strategies.

Peace,
-CxE

ok? Have you even listen to starcraft players???????? Rush, zergway, more rush. An rts like starcraft is hardly....anyway what is thing about shallow variety? What is so shallow about fighting a spike team one game, a melee heavy team another game, hex based team the next game, and a heavy condition team the last game? Each possibility has at least 3-5 variations with different themes at that. How is that shallow? What sounds like shallow variation to me is favored build, favored build version 2, and favored build version 3. But alas, I'm even more surprised, that considering that hardly any competitive game has both variation and balance in a tournment level...he insist that the two can coexist in a community with the power to rain nerfing hell fire from heaven.

Seamus Finn · May 30, 2007, 11:00 PM // 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

What is so shallow about fighting a spike team one game, a melee heavy team another game, hex based team the next game, and a heavy condition team the last game? Each possibility has at least 3-5 variations with different themes at that. .

I am basically restating what ensign said in a phrase:
spike builds can kill one way: 3 -2 -1 win!
Melee heavy teams CAN have variety, but if you are referreing to an IWAY type build the team wins through one real strategem: outpressuring backlines quickly
Hex based teams win one way: ruining enemy melee and outpressuring/shutting down monks with hex degen and shutdown
Heavy condition teams win one way: Spreading conditions, dazing the RC monk and wiping the team.

Thus each of these builds are very different from each other in their intended path to victory, but same in their limited options of achieving victory, ultimately resulting in polarized, shallow play. With the right templates, you can add aspects of these builds into a more balanced template, but lose the single-minded potency of the simpler archetypes.

wuzzman · May 31, 2007, 02:47 AM // 02:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus Finn

I am basically restating what ensign said in a phrase:
spike builds can kill one way: 3 -2 -1 win!
Melee heavy teams CAN have variety, but if you are referreing to an IWAY type build the team wins through one real strategem: outpressuring backlines quickly
Hex based teams win one way: ruining enemy melee and outpressuring/shutting down monks with hex degen and shutdown
Heavy condition teams win one way: Spreading conditions, dazing the RC monk and wiping the team.

Thus each of these builds are very different from each other in their intended path to victory, but same in their limited options of achieving victory, ultimately resulting in polarized, shallow play. With the right templates, you can add aspects of these builds into a more balanced template, but lose the single-minded potency of the simpler archetypes.

again what is really wrong about specializing if it works? But alas, after year the community still demands a meta that shouldn't have changed in their minds since May 2006. After looking at the wish list, I can say with glee, "I can't wait to bring out my blindbot/warder

". I mean really can't get more stale then that. Now you could "balance" up what would normally be a polarized build but that is hardly an variety given the 1-2 free slots of inovation you get from what is accepted as balance. And if it is effective it's probably going to be in the nerf bat line. Well For what its worth, I'm glad people after 1 year, consider snares(well just water hex's) a important part of the a balance build.

Thom Bangalter · May 31, 2007, 03:58 AM // 03:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

ok? Have you even listen to starcraft players???????? Rush, zergway, more rush.

playing on a lan with your friends isn't really listening to starcraft players, that's listening to your friends. there are methods for beating zerg, but a lot of players don't explore these strategies because they can beat other bad players with zerg rushes.

Div · May 31, 2007, 05:48 AM // 05:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

ok? Have you even listen to starcraft players???????? Rush, zergway, more rush.

I have a friend who played on the US national team in Singapore or something in 2005. According to him, SC is one of the most balanced games with great variety out there. And seriously, if you lose to zergling rushes, there's something wrong with you...

If one race was inherently better than the others, you'd see 90%+ of players playing zerg and using the same strats in those tournaments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

playing on a lan with your friends isn't really listening to starcraft players, that's listening to your friends. there are methods for beating zerg, but a lot of players don't explore these strategies because they can beat other bad players with zerg rushes.

QFT

Seamus Finn · May 31, 2007, 06:50 AM // 06:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

again what is really wrong about specializing if it works? .

It's boring. At some point you have to just ask yourself, am I typing this as someone playing these matches, trying different strats, blah blah blah blah and analyzing whether or not i think the game is better/more fun, or am I jsut someone watching obs mode saying, "Hey! How come everyone is running 2 monks?" More options are great, but they aren't worth degrading the whole game to have, and I think you really need to evalute exactly how much a build can be altered with changing 3 character slots.

D Fault · May 31, 2007, 07:35 AM // 07:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

again what is really wrong about specializing if it works?

Because it only works in one way. If that one 'strat' that you've biased your build towards fails to succeed, you don't have alot of other options with what you can do, compared to what a skilled balanced team has.

wuzzman · May 31, 2007, 11:47 AM // 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by holymasamune

I have a friend who played on the US national team in Singapore or something in 2005. According to him, SC is one of the most balanced games with great variety out there. And seriously, if you lose to zergling rushes, there's something wrong with you...

If one race was inherently better than the others, you'd see 90%+ of players playing zerg and using the same strats in those tournaments.

QFT

try korean. no zerg rush ain't the only strategy, but yes its a strategy that works well, unless you devote alot of energy into countering. yes the meta for starcraft is stale...korean just go to korea.

wuzzman · May 31, 2007, 12:24 PM // 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus Finn

It's boring. At some point you have to just ask yourself, am I typing this as someone playing these matches, trying different strats, blah blah blah blah and analyzing whether or not i think the game is better/more fun, or am I jsut someone watching obs mode saying, "Hey! How come everyone is running 2 monks?" More options are great, but they aren't worth degrading the whole game to have, and I think you really need to evalute exactly how much a build can be altered with changing 3 character slots.

Its only boring because its not your prefered method of play and neither do you consider balance. If I decided to load up my midline with hex's because I know 75% of my opponants are going to carry RC, I would think that I'm doing the smart thing. But I am considered cheating because "hex overload just ain't right". You can always say running a spike is boring or running a build like iway is boring, but then again, it works half the time how boring can it be? I never like running those 1 trick pony builds, but I have no personal angst when I play against them. I don't think in the back of my mind, " their cheating, that build requires no skill to play, their just ****".

Concerning your "see what changing 3 character slots can do". I know what they can do, but it won't be accepted in the meta. In a pvp community that wish's assassins, paragons, ritualist, and devrish were removed from the game...do you expect those 3 slot changes to matter without getting nerfed? This is the real difference between the old meta and the new

2 shock/axe warriors -----------------------> same (maybe a devrish)
2 boon/prots -------------------------------> lod/infuse and rc/prot
1 Ward/HP ele ------------------------------> reapers mark necro
1 Blind bot/hp ele(optinol) -------------------> Water ele
1 or 2 e-surge mesmers ----------------------> migraine mesmer
pick a flavors for the rest --------------> broad head or burning arrow ranger

What's the problem? Oh just a migraine mesmer, water ele, and a reapers mark necro. Granted most people would want to nerf the reapers mark necro, but its only a matter of time before the migraine and the water ele go. What does that tell me? 1 year has past and in 1 year the community is still trying to play the 1 year old meta balance build.

Oh concerning the old days of HA Blame the Monks, the build I posted was exactly the build people ran back in the day. Now considering that, in what way do you see a match between 2 balance builds using THAT build ending in a reasonable time? Neither team has the damage to kill the other team in the first place...but alas the winner of those match's were always the better player no doubt about that. If you ever wondered why alot of top HA guilds only ran brain dead builds like iway and rspike, behold the 40 minute long match requirment of the old school balance.

Farin · May 31, 2007, 06:08 PM // 18:08

I've played quite a few matches where both teams carried the exact same template (2 Warriors, 1 Ranger, 1 Mesmer, 2 Eles, 2 Monks) with only a 4-5 skill difference. The game was not stale AT ALL. It often ends in 5-10 minuted MAX. (This is against good teams, not your average rank 1000 team.

Your argument is not only flawed, it's wrong. Had you played with and against a balanced build and good players you would realize that these games are not stale at all. Of course, all you seem to have played is tombs. What can you expect.

Nekretaal · May 31, 2007, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Yeah, but if I wanted to play a game where both teams had the same template and abilities I would play something like Battlefield or Gears.

Guild wars is a really bad game for this type of gameplay.

Take away the hundreds of skills and build possibilities (builwars, whatever)and Guild wars starts to look really unnattracive compared to its competitors.

lord of shadow · May 31, 2007, 11:00 PM // 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

The current gvg balance build is;

2 warriors (pick your elite)
1 lod/infuse
1 rc/prot
1 burning arrow or broad head ranger
1 water ele
1 migraine mez
1 reapers mark necro

That's when i stopped taking you even slightly seriously. On a seperate note your entire argument is trash, i'll now explain briefly why.

People play balanced builds so they are able to excecute several strategic plays depending on their opponents, basically so they win or lose based on their skill. This already means your entire post is irrelevant because you imply that people want to win because of build alone, but they want that build to have 2 wars, a mesmer, an ele and 2 monks.

People complain when a build beats balanced builds regardless of skill because balanced builds do not have a "counter" as they do not only employ one strategy. They can do several different things, something that can stop them doing each of those things via tactical plays is a balanced build, even if it contains 2 paragons, a necro, two rits and a sin. When people complain is when a build with only one tactic can win, simply because this tactic is so much more powerful, as it uses imbalanced skills.

So what happens if two balanced teams face each other? Did someone say: "The winner of those matches were almost always the better team no question"?

The next sentence will be underlined and reapeated in order to somehow drill it into your skull.

The better team winning is the whole point of a balanced game
The better team winning is the whole point of a balanced game

Anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wuzzman

Lets say that the community decides that there is only one build or build type that requires any real skill...And lets say a counter to that build was invented

This shows your fundamental misunderstanding of what a balanced build is. It's something that doesn't have a counter because it has a variety of tactics, the community thinks it requires skill because it relies on skill to win. In a truly balanced game the "counter" would be using an equally flexible build more skillfully, would the community frown on this counter and call for a nerf? No, because any build fulfilling the requirements of requiring strategy to win and being flexible would be called a balanced build.

Good day.