Curse

Blame the Monks · Mar 28, 2007, 01:21 AM // 01:21

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.

/wallofwords

Icy DS · Mar 28, 2007, 01:27 AM // 01:27

First Post.

I win.

You have answered all of my lifes questions.

Now I can die.

Zuranthium · Mar 28, 2007, 01:49 AM // 01:49

Hurray. Now get people to start playing the game again with your words of wisdom.

~Z

tomcruisejr · Mar 28, 2007, 02:05 AM // 02:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

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.

/wallofwords

So adding skills is moot and making other builds is worthless should the balanced build be the most powerful and variety is only indicated by difference of the skills used by 1 class.

Yea, turning GW into chess is key.

Kill iway, spike, everything gimmicky but spare balanced? oh noes. No more build wars.

Blame the Monks · Mar 28, 2007, 02:46 AM // 02:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

So adding skills is moot and making other builds is worthless should balance be the most powerful and variety is only indicated by difference of the skills used by 1 class.

Yea, we turning GW into chess is key.

Kill iway, spike, everything gimmicky but spare balanced? oh noes. No more build wars.

Nope, none of that follows at all from what I wrote. And for the record, I think IWAY was one of the most brilliant builds in the game, even if it is not balanced at all (no spikes, no splits, no real defense). But even gimmickry has its place, it just shouldn't dominate a game designed as a competitive tactical RPG.

If anything, I would argue for adding/changing skills to make the weaker, gimmicky classes more flexible and versatile as opposed to buffing skills without changing the underlying problems with the class.

tomcruisejr · Mar 28, 2007, 02:59 AM // 02:59

Sorry for that spam post please ignore it. Now I have questions.

1) Would you consider a build with a gimmicky setup but is flexible, has the ability to adapt and do different tactics (like split, pressure, spike) a balanced build (or there should always be 3 warriors, 1 mesmer, 1 interrupt ranger and 3 others)?

2) Also do you think that all builds are gimmicks and the playstyle automatically makes a certain build a balanced build?

3) Why are you smurfing under [Kry]? [cow] should get top 1 bitch!.

Blame the Monks · Mar 28, 2007, 03:12 AM // 03:12

In order of importance...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

3) Why are you smurfing under [Kry]? [cow] should get top 1 bitch!.

Once we got disqualified we just wanted to play but no one wanted to spoil cow by inviting pugs (too close to our near breakup I suppose). Hence, kry was born. We have had other short term pugs in the past but never one that played so many games or lasted this long. Kry might be a permanent pug to allow us to gvg whenever we want.

Besides, cow already is #1 ^^

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

1) Would you consider a build with a gimmicky setup but is flexible, has the ability to adapt and do different tactics (like split, pressure, spike) a balanced build (or there should always be 3 warriors, 1 mesmer, 1 interrupt ranger and 3 others)?

No, a balanced build is NEVER defined by the classes. As I said above, 2 wars + 4 support + 2 monk does not magically make a build balanced. Eurospike is a good example of this. It was clearly a spike based off of a couple of imba skills. It had some marginal flexibility, but it was closer to a gimmicky caster spike than a true balanced build, even tho it may have appeared to have similar classes.

So yes, if someone could design a build with 8 rit/ass that somehow was able to win based on varied tactics and player skill, it would be a balanced build. I don't believe that can happen due to game mechanics, but in theory at least a balanced build doesn't matter what it is made of, just how it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

2) Also do you think that all builds are gimmicks and the playstyle automatically makes a certain build a balanced build?

No. Some builds are more gimmicky (IE, inflexible and one trick, based on imba skills/mechanics) than others. Its probably true that all builds are imbalanced on some level because every build has a plan A -- even the most flexible teams in the game prefer to pressure over split, for example. So its probably true that there is no such thing as a PURE balanced build, but it is also true that some builds are more balanced than others.

Probably the closest to a true balanced build would be something like this: shock axe, dom mesmer, water ele, burning ranger, monks. Not because they magically have two physicals, but because each of those builds is flexible and tactics friendly. This allows the team to win by tactics and skill, not because of build.

Imo.

just rude · Mar 28, 2007, 03:39 AM // 03:39

I'm confused, I was totlly with you about the play style required to play balanced. I think exploitative(is that a word?) builds should be played when ever to give to devs a heads up on what is imba but, "And for the record, I think IWAY was one of the most brilliant builds in the game, even if it is not balanced at all (no spikes, no splits, no real defense). But even gimmickry has its place, it just shouldn't dominate a game designed as a competitive tactical RPG.." Which I don't necessarily disagree with, btw what is an average balanced build?

What exactly do you mean by average? What type of players are running what build? I agree with what you posted but I think we need to stop having guilds like short bus and PVE being able to get to the top of the ladder.

it seems to me one or the other. You either have exploitable skills or you dont. Actually with the format and the new skills it just seems you have exploiotable skills.

What I dont understand is way people play imblanced shit to begin with, my goal is to just get better. That's not your goal? You really give a shit what title you have, only to display it infront of people you will never meet? That RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing BLOWS my mind. I have 3000+ hours in 14 months and I could give a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO, can I just win please!

lol

edit:
Win consistantly, right through nerfs

tomcruisejr · Mar 28, 2007, 04:21 AM // 04:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

I think IWAY was one of the most brilliant builds in the game,

Yea, it's so RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing brilliant that it gave a bad player like me /rank with no sweat.

Clinically Proven · Mar 28, 2007, 05:17 AM // 05:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomcruisejr

3) Why are you smurfing under [Kry]

Oh, I thought [Kry] were iQ...

Thom · Mar 28, 2007, 05:58 AM // 05:58

Quick thoughts:
1)There are plenty of "near balanced" builds which take a basic balance framework and add a primary tactic without sacrificing flexibility. Hex-heavy balance, condition heavy pressure-spike, melee overload... all these have a gimmick element/primary strategy without sacrificing balance. That is to say, each have a pressure/spike option, split option and offense/defense option.

2) I played a bit of TA (I'm not a big TA player) successfully running 3 fairly mundane rangers: flexible damage interrupters easch with a slightly different flavor. We were all playing the same class with the same general build type, but the play style was completely balanced pressure spike. 6 rangers across 8 targets is harder to organize, but if you could extend this ranger concept to GvG I would argue that you are running balanced. Spike/Pressure option exists, rangers are very split flexible and you can play offensively or defensively depending on target selection. While I wouldn't suggest trying this, it would be a balanced build tactically.

Bankai · Mar 28, 2007, 06:33 AM // 06:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom

I played a bit of TA (I'm not a big TA player) successfully running 3 fairly mundane rangers: flexible damage interrupters easch with a slightly different flavor. We were all playing the same class with the same general build type, but the play style was completely balanced pressure spike. 6 rangers across 8 targets is harder to organize, but if you could extend this ranger concept to GvG I would argue that you are running balanced. Spike/Pressure option exists, rangers are very split flexible and you can play offensively or defensively depending on target selection. While I wouldn't suggest trying this, it would be a balanced build tactically.

A guildie had the same idea.

Ofcourse, it was ruined by the fact that he wanted to play with 6 rangers+2 monks+runner.

To be honest, I think there should be a game mechanic to prevent spikes. For example, you cannot lose more than half your health in one second.

Shmanka · Mar 28, 2007, 08:33 AM // 08:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bankai

To be honest, I think there should be a game mechanic to prevent spikes. For example, you cannot lose more than half your health in one second.

If you do this take out EVERY energy management skill in the game with it, constant pressure =people not dying= stale game=people not dying...

Blame the Monks · Mar 28, 2007, 01:08 PM // 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by just rude

"And for the record, I think IWAY was one of the most brilliant builds in the game, even if it is not balanced at all (no spikes, no splits, no real defense). But even gimmickry has its place, it just shouldn't dominate a game designed as a competitive tactical RPG.."

I think IWAY was brilliant because it was a great idea -- who would have thought a team could win without monks at all? So few teams have been able to do that. When I first heard the idea, I thought it would never work. Shows what I know, I suppose. The reason I think IWAY was brilliant isn't because the build is balanced (its not flexible at all), because it takes skill to play (it is easy to play -- which is a good thing), or because it was overused. All that is true and I am glad it got nerfed appropriately. Still, whoever came up with the concept had a great idea of an unexpected way to use skills.

As for exploitable skills, yes they exist and yes they always have. But that isn't what makes a build balanced. Balance is defined by TACTICS not the tool/skill they used to play. For example, gale was a classic imba skill and a staple of balanced builds. Using an imba skill didn't make the teams any less flexible, it just made gale need a nerf.

Now of course, overpowered skills and gimmicks should be nerfed, but on top of that I think Anet SHOULD prefer a balanced team to a team that can only do one thing, even when all skills are balanced and neither exploits skills.

Patccmoi · Mar 28, 2007, 01:35 PM // 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmanka

If you do this take out EVERY energy management skill in the game with it, constant pressure =people not dying= stale game=people not dying...

Not really no. Most spikes out of a caster spike hit more in a 1-2s window than clean, which is why you'll often see monks knocked, blackout (not as frequent nowadays but before it was) or diversioned during the spike so that they cannot react even though they would have time in theory. The only thing that tends to kill people off cleanly is true spike teams (caster spikes, ranger spikes, etc.)

I don't think a mechanic like that needs to be implemented (and there would have to be some things to check too, like what about DPed/low health people, etc.), but the idea in itself isn't that bad. And not being able to lose more than 50% max health in 1s means you can be killed from full in something like 2s (faster if you weren't full to start with), which isn't exactly 'constant pressure'.

Alleji · Mar 28, 2007, 04:07 PM // 16:07

I disagree with you on the hex builds (I assume you'd put condition pressure in the same category?)

Hex builds simply choose not to rely as much on physicals for their offense, but they have the features of a balanced build. They can play offensively or defensively. A migrane mesmer in addition to spreading degen can focus on enemy monks or on offensive casters, which would be the equivalent of linebacking. A dom mesmer can likewise shutdown different characters. A hex build works better in 8v8, but it can split if forced to. Most hex builds also have a an adrenal spike with a shatter and maybe an orb from the flagger.

I agree that some of the characters in a hex build are fairly narrow (a curse necro doesn't usually do anything other than faint warriors and spam the rest of his degen indiscriminantly), but most hex builds are not one-dimensional gimmicks.

Thomas.knbk · Mar 28, 2007, 05:46 PM // 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clinically Proven

Oh, I thought [Kry] were iQ...

That would be so brilliant

Blame the Monks · Mar 28, 2007, 08:51 PM // 20:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alleji

I disagree with you on the hex builds ... most hex builds are not one-dimensional gimmicks.

Well, I agree with you in part. Just because a team doesn't rely on physical damage doesn't mean it is one dimensional (IE, not balanced). But very few casters CAN adjust tactically, and very, very few builds can match physicals in terms of flexibility. That is why warriors are such a staple in balanced builds -- simple game design. The reason warriors are so much more flexible is because wars don't have to use 5-7+ skills to get basic damage and eman. This is because so many caster skills in GW are overpriced and just the fact physicals do good damage without skills. This leaves a lot more spots on a warrior for self heal, utility, etc.

But if a hex build actually could adjust tactics as well as you said in your post, you bet they would be flexible enough to be a balanced build. So like if you ran a build similar to cows old hex build (2 war, nec, 2 mes, ranger) that is a reasonably balanced build even tho it is designed to kill targets primarily through hex/condition degen pressure.

But where I disagree with you is I like hex teams like that are the minority. I see a lot more hex teams running 5 hex spammers + a derv on jade than running cow style hex pressure. These teams don't adjust tactics at all, they just overload your hex removal. I see the cow style as more flexible/balanced while the derv hex on jade is much more one dimensional. Neither are inherently "better" or more "kosher" but I think the game should promote flexibility over specialization/gimmickry, which is what this is all about.

The fundamental thrust of my post was that GW should be more about in-match tactics and adjustments than out of match planning one specialized tactic or build. You may disagree, but that is my stance.

Patrick Smit · Mar 29, 2007, 06:59 AM // 06:59

I like the topic and it made some things clear for me, now I will come with a question. When u design a balanced build, how much "balanced" players u would include and how much that are "imbalanced" (having no or little self support)?

I would guess 2-3 IMBA would be ok, as they most likely will stick around the monks. Then 3-4 could go for split tactics. Or is this a wrong assumption on design tactics?

Blame the Monks · Mar 29, 2007, 01:10 PM // 13:10

I think its better to look at the overall team rather than each part. Almost every individual part of a gvg team is highly specialized (otherwise we would be running 8 wammos with self heals, self condition removes, etc). Its the team as a whole that matters because the monks at least are almost always specialized to only defense, etc.