Curse

assassin of the god · May 14, 2007, 09:50 PM // 21:50

A guildie of mine(cobalt relambrien) wrote this article a little while ago, and while I dont personally agree with everything said here, I felt it was too good to be left to rot on our private forums:

Greetings everyone!

This mini-article will detail the several different types of reasons guilds GvG. It will also explain the telltale signs and effects of each one, as well as example builds each type might play. Now, I suck at intros, so let's just delve right into it!

Overview - Intentions
1) Play to win
2) Play for fun
3) Play to improve
::3.1) Play to improve skill
::3.2) Play to improve coordination
::3.3) Play to improve split
::3.4) Play to improve spike
::3.4) Play to improve pressure
::3.5) Play to improve defense
4) Play to experiment

Playing to Win

The guild that plays to win makes up the majority of the guilds on the ladder. These guilds generally run meta or broken builds, and do not care whether or not they earn the rank and rating they receive. All they want is to win. Examples of this are [Meow], [Shiv], and to a lesser extent, [rawr]. All three run some sort of imbalanced or broken build as their main build, with the sole purpose of winning.

[Meow] runs a Paragon spike, [Shiv] ran bloodspike, and [rawr] runs hexes.

This philosophy generally originates from one of two sources. A guild may decide that it wants to play on a higher level, and will rating farm with a broken build to a high rank before switching to a balanced build and getting destroyed. Also, a guild may be on a losing streak, and switch to a broken build out of frustration. In the case of guilds like [Meow] and [Shiv], the players get enjoyment from frustrating those who play balanced, and want to win, at any level, at any cost.

Effects generally include an overall rating increase until the meta shifts or the broken build is nerfed, after which a sharp rating decrease follows, sometimes leading to a disband of the guild.

Example builds are hexes, paragon spike, bloodspike, and the like.

Playing for Fun

This playstyle makes up the majority of the sub-rank-1000 guilds on the ladder. These guilds decided to hop into GvG one day with a totally random build or totally wacky build just to see what happened. High-rank guilds did this after the ladder reset and before ATs, since losing rating didn't matter much at all. Examples of guilds like this were [QQ] at some points, and virtually all guilds with a rank or rating below 1000.

This philosophy differs based on the type of person playing like this. For instance, [QQ] had its backwards day when it was fed up with the meta and swapped everyone's roles. In this case, it was to break the monotony of playing the same thing against the same thing over and over. In the case of a sub-1000 guild, GvG is generally a new frontier, and they do not wish to take it seriously, doing whatever they want with no real desire to improve.

Effects generally include an overall rating decrease. In the cases of these guilds, rating generally doesn't matter at the time this playstyle is used, therefore there are little to no ill effects on the guild.

Example builds include IWAY (with the exception of MATH), 8 Touch Rangers, Paladinway, etc.

Playing to Improve

Guilds like this prefer to improve as players and as a guild as opposed to improving in rank. These guilds are fewer in number than guilds that play to win, but are still quite common. Guilds like ours and mid-rank guilds that do not run meta are like this.

Of course, there are several different aspects to improvement, and each one will be detailed here. Playing for improvement overall generally results in no change to a build, but rather instruct and focus on specific tasks each player must do in order to improve the team as a whole.

Playing to Improve Skill

Guilds like this tend to focus on improving individual skill at a certain position. Thus, they will attempt to create a balanced build that involves everyone's main roles and have each person stay in that role until the guild feels that improvement is satisfactory.

Effects generally involve a decrease in rating at first, followed by a recovery and net increase in rating as improvement is made.

Example builds are like anything that is overall balanced. Build's like the ones [cow] uses wouldn't qualify, as they are heavy-pressure oriented. "Jack-of-all-trades" builds like 2 Warriors, a Mesmer, a Ranger, 2 Elementalists, and 2 Monks are common for guilds like this.

Playing to Improve Coordination

Guilds playing like this generally suffered from losses or frustration because of lack of communication or team coordination. Thus, they will choose to play a build that requires excellent coordination to pull off. [cow]'s builds would fit better here, as the team must work together in order to properly pressure the enemy to the point where they break before the team does.

Effects are generally positive, with an increase in rating and overall team coordination. However, playing a specialized build too long may result in a lack of coordination when running other builds.

Example builds are overload pressure like a Dervish, a Warrior, a Paragon, a water Elementalist, a Burning Arrow Ranger, 2 Monks, and a Mind Blast runner.

Playing to Improve Split

Guilds that play to improve split generally do so because they have difficulty splitting in-game. As a result, they tend to play builds that only work if they can split, such as a Recall sin split. The coordination on the split and split defense is improved.

Effects may, like all improvement styles, be negative at first but steadily become positive as the split becomes more proficient. Playing this may lead to a "play to win" strategy, however, as most dedicated split builds are seen as gimmicks, which encourage playing to win.

An example build is Recall split. It may also fall under the "play to win" category.

Playing to Improve Spike

Guilds that need to improve spike are few and far between. However, they may have difficulty with players not following target directions or performing proper actions on a spike. Builds generally remain unchanged from a guild's normal build, but with a mindset and in-game style focused more on spiking than pressure. Practice is, after all, the best way to improve at spiking.

Standard improvement effects apply. Be wary of a decrease in pressuring skill resulting from the lack of a need to pressure.

Playing to Improve Pressure

Guilds that need to improve pressure also generally need to improve coordination, so the playstyles are very similar. Both require that the team be able to communicate efficiently, and often silently, and everyone must know what to do in order to best help the team. Thus, builds like [cow]'s, which are designed to pressure but only decent at spiking, are common. Guilds then learn to switch targets and pressure properly out of necessity.

Standard improvement effects apply, but skill in spiking may decrease as spikes are not common in builds dedicated to improving pressure.

An example build is overload pressure.

Playing to Improve Defense

Guilds that need to improve defense generally find themselves falling to certain builds or teams quickly, for any number of reasons. Whether it's hexes completely negating a Monk's ability to protect his team or overload pressure annihilating a poorly-protted team, guilds like this generally have a specific build they have difficulty with. They then alter their own build to include more defense to compensate, and repeatedly practice whilst trying to ween themselves off of their modified build. Any build with relatively large amounts of defense (Hexes+Aegis chain comes to mind) is common in this category.

Standard improvement effects apply.

An example build is anything with two water eles and an Aegis chain.

Notes on Playing to Improve

Notice that generally, playing to improve a certain aspect consists of placing yourself into a situation where improving that aspect is key to victory. Also, do not be discouraged by initial losses. Be wary of the effects improving one thing can have on your ability in another aspect.

Playing to Experiment

These guilds are generally high-ranked and have no worry about their status. Top 20 guilds, and innovative guilds such as iQ (glyph sac+meteor shower anyone?) are the most common in this category. They try out new skill combinations in an attempt to find something that works. For instance, I once observed one of iQ's smurfs playing an e-denial spike. E-Surge, Wither, Malaise, and Mind Wrack all on a target with Warrior support. Smurf guilds are common simply because of this desire to experiment.

Most guilds are unwilling to experiment due to the extreme risk it poses, so effects on a guild by playing this are minimal. This is because they will most likely be playing as a smurf or at a level in which several losses will not have much effect anyway (such as the top 20). Skill-wise, it improves whatever aspects are key to the experimental build.

Epilogue

This article is designed as a guide to determine what your guild should be focusing on, or what it is focusing on that you don't know about. This can be used to decide whether to play a certain build to improve your guild, or to see what will happen to your guild if you continue to play the way you do. The meta is constantly evolving, and while the build types may change, the fundamental playstyles listed in this article are constant. No matter what you're playing, your style can be attributed to one of those mentioned here.

Now good luck, have fun, and are you iQ!

-Cobalt

Relambrien · May 14, 2007, 11:13 PM // 23:13

Also note that I was bored when I wrote this, so don't expect it to be perfect. :P

Anti Oath · May 15, 2007, 02:03 AM // 02:03

Nice, did you both write it or are you accually both just one person...or ....r u iQ?

Ec]-[oMaN · May 15, 2007, 02:49 AM // 02:49

It's good, just needs some bolded characters

Zuranthium · May 15, 2007, 04:03 AM // 04:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ec]-[oMaN

It's good, just needs some bolded characters

Agreed.

I like that you talk about playing to experiment. That was why I bought the game when it came out - I wanted an MMO where I could change classes at will without all the grinding and play whatever I wanted based upon my mood. It's hard to find good players who want to do fun/experimental GvG builds with you, though. (maybe I should assimilate into iQ)

~Z

Div · May 15, 2007, 06:11 AM // 06:11

Pretty good article overall, but I'd say that "playing to improve _____" is actually a little more intertwined and less distinct as you make it. Also note stuff like paraway can be seen as playing to improve pressure and eurospike can be seen as playing to improve spike, just as recall splits can be seen as playing to improve splits. All of these improvements have bad builds within them that really depends on how gimmicky it is.

Blame the Monks · May 15, 2007, 12:56 PM // 12:56

I think you are confusing "play to win" philosophy and the metagame. People don't run pressure to improve. They run pressure because it works better than spike. Disruption + monstrous pressure is far more difficult to stop than a spike. Disruption + monstrous pressure + a viable but optional 2-3 man split is even more difficult to counter, which is why all the top guilds run a variation of that theme. Its not about playing to win, its about what actually wins given the meta.

I likewise think you are confusing "play to win" with using the style that gets you the most wins given your roster and skill. Top teams don't run balanced because they are playing for fun, they run balanced because that allows them to beat more teams than running an inflexible gimmick. Likewise, teams that run gimmicks competitively typically do so because they get more wins running that gimmick than trying to run balanced. Both are playing to win, its just when (if?) the game is balanced the team that takes more skill and teamwork should win (balanced).

The whole p2w mantra is overdone and frequently misapplied imo. Of course we all play to win. A tiny fraction play to win because they get paid, but most of us play to win because winning is fun. We all try to max out our chances of winning by running whatever build gives us the most chance of winning, etc. Its the same with "play to learn." There is nothing inherently good about learning -- people learn because it makes then win more. That's all.

Why do people contort this practical philosophy into moral justification for bad behavior, gimmick abuse, and/or arroagance?

TheOneMephisto · May 15, 2007, 08:49 PM // 20:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

I think you are confusing "play to win" philosophy and the metagame. People don't run pressure to improve. They run pressure because it works better than spike. Disruption + monstrous pressure is far more difficult to stop than a spike. Disruption + monstrous pressure + a viable but optional 2-3 man split is even more difficult to counter, which is why all the top guilds run a variation of that theme. Its not about playing to win, its about what actually wins given the meta.

I likewise think you are confusing "play to win" with using the style that gets you the most wins given your roster and skill. Top teams don't run balanced because they are playing for fun, they run balanced because that allows them to beat more teams than running an inflexible gimmick. Likewise, teams that run gimmicks competitively typically do so because they get more wins running that gimmick than trying to run balanced. Both are playing to win, its just when (if?) the game is balanced the team that takes more skill and teamwork should win (balanced).

The whole p2w mantra is overdone and frequently misapplied imo. Of course we all play to win. A tiny fraction play to win because they get paid, but most of us play to win because winning is fun. We all try to max out our chances of winning by running whatever build gives us the most chance of winning, etc. Its the same with "play to learn." There is nothing inherently good about learning -- people learn because it makes then win more. That's all.

Why do people contort this practical philosophy into moral justification for bad behavior, gimmick abuse, and/or arroagance?

QFT. A much better example of playing to win IMO would be EW pulling out FoC spike in the finals, or iQ running their glyph sac->met shower VoD build.

JoeKnowMo · May 15, 2007, 11:12 PM // 23:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti Oath

r u iQ?

I know u r but what am I?q

Patrograd · May 16, 2007, 07:34 AM // 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blame the Monks

I likewise think you are confusing "play to win" with using the style that gets you the most wins given your roster and skill. Top teams don't run balanced because they are playing for fun, they run balanced because that allows them to beat more teams than running an inflexible gimmick. Likewise, teams that run gimmicks competitively typically do so because they get more wins running that gimmick than trying to run balanced. Both are playing to win, its just when (if?) the game is balanced the team that takes more skill and teamwork should win (balanced).

I have a question on this that I'm hoping one of the high rank guys can answer.

In the past, it was generally accepted as true that in order to really perform at the top of the ladder you needed to be able to run a balanced build, and I mean really run it, master it so that you could use effectively the same build through whatever changes the meta threw at you. As such, if you wanted to emulate such teams, then it was worth, if you were something other than a top team, dedicating considerable time and energy into learning to play a balanced pressure build - perhaps what the OP refers to as "playing to learn". I have always believed that striving to learn balanced is, really, the ultimate form of "play to win". I have also always believed that this was the ultimate form of "playing for fun" as once you get used to running balanced, anything else is boring as hell.

What I was wondering was whether this was still true?

The reason I ask is that I look at the top of the ladder, in Europe certainly, and I see teams that I know have a superb mastery of balanced builds that are currently running hexes on Jade or some other gimmick. The number of top Euro teams running something that you could reasonably describe as balanced is really very small, and I am wondering whether a continued pursuit of balanced build mastery for an aspiring guild isnt an exercise in futility?

Blame the Monks · May 16, 2007, 12:29 PM // 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

... once you get used to running balanced, anything else is boring as hell.

I won't pretend to speak for everyone, but that has certainly been true for me. When I was a noob I would run gimmicks occasionally if that's what the team wanted to do. Now it bores me to tears and I won't guest for a team that is running crap and I try to stay out of HA for the same reason.

Its also true that teams regularly win because of build wars, aka p/r/s, aka poor balance even at the higher end of the ladder. Its a bad meta and its unhealthy, because its more boring and even top team know they can't always overcome and win by skill.

Think of this -- think of the championship teams before factions came out. Think of the builds they ran and why they won. Now think of the championship teams since NF came out. Notice a change? Kind of interesting how now gimmicks started winning championships, eh?

That's why competition is suffering.

Relambrien · May 17, 2007, 02:34 AM // 02:34

About the whole "play-to-win" thing, I'm referring to the majority of the ladder, the 200-800 range. These guys will run gimmick because they think it's the best way to win, to gain rating. Obviously top guilds will run a balanced build because given the range they're in, that's the best way to win because everything else falls short. I used examples of top guilds only because most people know the gimmicks they run, no more.

Likewise, by "play to win" I mean playing ONLY to win. That is the #1 goal, and everything else can be tossed out the window. There's a difference between "playing to win" and "playing to win without using a broken gimmick"

As for the bolded characters statement, it was well-formatted on our forums, but Guru didn't like how Budda copy/pasted :P

But the underlying thing you all have to remember when reading this: I WAS BORED TO DEATH WHEN I WROTE IT. I didn't mean for it to be right; I meant for it to stimulate thought.

So yeah, I don't doubt that a lot of it is probably totally wrong, but that's fine with me as I didn't even mean for it to be posted here in the first place :P