Curse

Wasteland Squidget · Aug 01, 2006, 01:12 AM // 01:12

NR/Tranq is difficult for me to comment on. We've faced a couple, but none of them were very good teams so it's hard to measure the effectiveness as a hard counter.

It does seem like NR/Tranq was metagamed as a counter to smite back when smite was more popular though, and if you're metagaming specifically to counter a certain build then you're obviously going to gain a pretty big advantage. This holds just as true for balanced as for gimmick - a few months back when Dual Surge with gale warriors was the metagame some teams started running skills like BiP and Balanced Stance. Dual Surge is generally considered 'balanced', but if you prepare a counter build you'll still gain a pretty big advantage.

Likewise, recognize that NR/Tranq isn't just a skill, it's something your entire build has to be based around. Every aspect of your build is changed by the fact that you're running NR/Tranq. That's very different from ranger spike or FC air, where you can plug in a shout or a Ritualist and consistently win matches.

Spirits in general have a weird effect on this kind of discussion because they counter so many builds, both balanced and gimmick. If I'm running a fairly hex-heavy balanced build with dual boon prots I'm probably going to get owned by your NR/Tranq. If I have a pair of eles at the flagstand and you're running QZ and Equinox I'm going to have a much harder time beating you. Basically, spirits change the rules of the game so much that they blur the lines between gimmick and balanced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo-LD

Is there a large discrepancy between the level of skill required to run the build and the level of skill required to counter the build?

Honestly, I think this is the qualification most people really use to determine whether something is gimmick or balanced, and it's the one item on your list that I think applies to triple smite. Unskilled players can pick up triple smite, make tons of mistakes, and still beat a lot of teams purely on the strength of the build. If your team's offense and defense isn't coordinated and generally on the top of their game, even a less-skilled triple smite can roll right over you.

What I'd argue is that beating triple smite is more about player skill than whether you happened to be carrying the specific build counter. There isn't anything that you can plug into your build to beat triple smite, unless you feel like changing everything to be based around NR/Tranq. Teams that lose to triple smite should focus more on what they could have done to improve their play and win the match, rather than saying "Well, we didn't have the counters in our build" and moving on.

Red Locust · Aug 01, 2006, 02:10 AM // 02:10

Yes, triple smite is gimmick. It's funny how some people try to spin the argument around by saying that "gimmick" is anything that's not "balanced", as if a balanced build can only be one thing.

Truth is that a balanced build can have any number of warriors, eles, rangers, mesmers, necros and monks (to a certain extent). There are tons of combinations of chars and strategies that amount to what people like to collectively clump together as "balanced".

Triple smite, on the other hand, just involves smite and smash face with the same build.

edit: just noticed Gus posted the same thing :\

twicky_kid · Aug 01, 2006, 06:19 AM // 06:19

Every build in GW is a gimmick build. If it didn't have a gimmick it wouldn't work.

Patrograd · Aug 01, 2006, 07:07 AM // 07:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by twicky_kid

Every build in GW is a gimmick build. If it didn't have a gimmick it wouldn't work.

Well, I think that we are talking about builds that are focussed around the abuse of one or two skills, and that typically require less skill to play successfully than they take to counter

Byron · Aug 01, 2006, 07:14 AM // 07:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

Well, I think that we are talking about builds that are focussed around the abuse of one or two skills, and that typically require less skill to play successfully than they take to counter

I think gimmick builds are those that don't work in tournament play, tbh.

Greedy Gus · Aug 01, 2006, 02:47 PM // 14:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

With triple smite, my experience has been very different. Our two losses this season were to iQ and KGYU - iQ ran a single dom mesmer and no other real smite counters, while KGYU was on their usual heavy pressure build. Both were excellent matches and they both beat us with player skill, despite having no real build counters.

It seems like this is the opposite of what should normally happen with a gimmick build. A gimmick build should be getting beaten by weaker teams that happen to be carrying the counters to the gimmick, and beat stronger teams which aren't carrying the counters. Given my initial assessment of triple smite as a pure gimmick this has been puzzling to me, hence my posting this thread.

Triple smite (at least the one we run) has most of these things. Two copies of Gale, distracting blow, various snares, ect. The only things on your list that we don't have are the blackouts and distortions and I guess the two-monk backline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

We in NUKE have been running Triple Smite for the last week or so

I think perhaps there is a problem with the way you set this up. "Triple Smite" is basically now the name of a build that includes 3 standard thumpers w/ pets (possibly a "charge" thumper but more rare), 3 basic AoE smiters including possibly an aegis chain, a draw, a JI, sometimes a glyph + hard rez, a single boon prot backline, and either a tainted necro runner or an air or water (or hybrid) e/mo runner.

Now if you're running interrupts, snares, gales, and even a warrior or two, then it's probably possible that you've adapted the build in ways to make it more balanced than the classic "triple smite" build. If so, it would probably be more appropriate to just post your build and ask how gimmicky it is. We can all agree that an AoE smiter in general isn't really a gimmick, just an offensive/defensive utility char.

There are a lot of definitions of gimmick, and I think the one that pertains to smite (and why people would give you any grief at all) is that it takes little skill but button mashing in conjunction with some powerful energy management skill, be it ether renewal or air of enchantment. Frankly I could care less about how much skill something takes and leave it to others to keep the game properly balanced.

This is Brad · Aug 11, 2006, 08:25 PM // 20:25

Their build is 3 W/E with either Gale or some other KD, 3 AoE Smiters, 1 Boon Prot, and 1 E/Mo flag runner.

I would define this as a gimmick because the overall build lacks utility to do much. If you have to send a warrior and a smiter to deal with 1 base ganking character on the other team, you've lost 1/3 of your offense at the flagstand. And when your relatively weak defense (only 1 real monk, the smiters are a little mitigation) relies on your front loaded offense to score quick kills, this can throw a wrench into your plans.

Wasteland Squidget · Aug 11, 2006, 08:41 PM // 20:41

I wouldn't say the defense is particularly weak, though it does have different strengths. The damage mitigation from the smiters doesn't come solely from their prots, but from the energy reduction on the boon prot's heals. As soon as AoE gets on a target the boon prot can chain heals without much energy loss. For this to work properly the smiters have to play like active prots, watching the battlefield and predicting where a spike will come. It took us a while to get used to that kind of defense, but now I feel it's stronger than a two-monk backline in many situations. Adren spikes, turtling assaults, and incoming flaggers to name a few.

Agreed that splits and gank forces can be an issue though. A lot of this build's defense does lie in its massive offensive threat.

Fanta · Aug 11, 2006, 11:55 PM // 23:55

Like said before, smite isn't gimmick, triple smite is. But i honestly believe that smiting itself doesn't take much skill. Button mash, and call for cover enchants if they have strips *in triple smite scenario*... well, a single smiter requires a little more skill, to know when to play defensive or offensive; air of enchant is pretty beastly

Thom · Aug 12, 2006, 01:02 AM // 01:02

My guild ran tq/nr over the open weekend with some success. It could be said that it was a hard counter to the two scariest gimmicks: triple smite and soul-spike as well as a major threat to anyone running 2 booners. We looked at it as a general counter build and we didn't mind taking matches to VoD. In many ways tq/nr builds are the truest counter build in the current meta-game. If you want every match to basically come down to player skill and improvisation, this is a great build to run.

Gimmicks in my book are builds that are one dimensional strategically and tactically repetitive. Strategically, triple smite is an aggressive pressure build; you can do other things with it but it is designed for steamrolling. Repetitive tactics are what make gimmick builds immune to soft counters. Three smiters on three thumpers is clearly gimmickly in that sense. Three warriors reduce some of the gimmick, but it comes down to lots of melee range pressure. The defense is largely repetive as well.

I think Ensign said something about triple smite being extremely difficult on "toolbox builds" because it quickly dictates play and does give much room for response. To beat the build you have to quickly distribute responsiblity to shutdown the steam roll and manufacture kills or morale boosts while locking down enough of the damage. The margin of error if the smiters are responding to your attempts to reduce damage is small.

Phelann · Aug 12, 2006, 01:36 AM // 01:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fanta

Like said before, smite isn't gimmick, triple smite is. But i honestly believe that smiting itself doesn't take much skill. Button mash, and call for cover enchants if they have strips *in triple smite scenario*... well, a single smiter requires a little more skill, to know when to play defensive or offensive; air of enchant is pretty beastly

i concur with this post.

Wasteland Squidget · Aug 12, 2006, 08:18 AM // 08:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fanta

Like said before, smite isn't gimmick, triple smite is. But i honestly believe that smiting itself doesn't take much skill. Button mash, and call for cover enchants if they have strips *in triple smite scenario*... well, a single smiter requires a little more skill, to know when to play defensive or offensive; air of enchant is pretty beastly

I've played with and against smiters who played in triple smite and just button-mashed after selecting the warrior. They sucked and their teams died.

In the lower tiers of the ladder I imagine a triple smite could punch through most defenses before their offense can really start to dent your one boon prot. However, a more competent offense is going to be hitting you constantly with damage and won't break immediately. The smiters in a triple smite build function as a large part of the build's defense, so they need to play as active prots, watch for spikes, and AoE pressured targets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom

I think Ensign said something about triple smite being extremely difficult on "toolbox builds" because it quickly dictates play and does give much room for response. To beat the build you have to quickly distribute responsiblity to shutdown the steam roll and manufacture kills or morale boosts while locking down enough of the damage. The margin of error if the smiters are responding to your attempts to reduce damage.

That sounds about right to me. IMO, the triple smite build does dictate some of the battle's terms purely on its own strength. In order to beat it you have to react fast and choose an offensive strategy that cripples their pressure, or your monks are going to break very quickly.

That said, I think this sort of offensive strategy is required in most builds at the high end. If you're sitting around letting the enemy play the offense their way, you're going to lose against a good team.

Da Cebuano · Aug 12, 2006, 12:52 PM // 12:52

TBH, all this talk about skill in GW is somewhat laughable in a sense, I mean other than playing an interrupt build(reflexes), there is really no skill involved(meaning true to the meaning of skill) and its much more on thinking ahead and tactics. Experience plays a lot of factors, and by experience, I mean that players have learned from, alot of players out there have played a while and are still in the same place they started.

Anyway, Gimmick is a term such as something called "Mainstream" if its useable by just anyone and something you can just pick and go w/ a singular goal and not much complication, its generally gonna be looked down by purist or elitist who are too proud of their "build w/ alot of thought".

A high end balanced team is awesome, its a beauty to see when motion, you can adjust on que and can steamroll, however, just cause its the standard doesn't mean everyone should run it, gvg would be so boring if different builds didn't exist.

Anyway, Gimmick seems to have some negative connotations here. That I don't get, actually, gimmick gets looked upon by everyone, which I believe is mainly due to the Egos of people in general, if they lose to anything other than a build similar to theirs, its a gimmick "noob" build. Well if it didn't take so much skill to use, then why didn't you use your "skill" to beat this "noob" build. Shit is just flinged when the other team loses and has to say something to console themselves.

Ventius Hozza · Aug 12, 2006, 01:33 PM // 13:33

IMO, 1 smiter is fine. 2 smiters is pushing it and 3 smiters (to me) means that the build is a gimmick and the team that is running them is rating farming.

My guild has always had a chance to run gimmick builds in GvG's but unanimously, we all decided that running our current balanced build really makes us better as players, rather than playing some mash-the-keyboard gimmick build.

I's also like to say to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Cebuano

TBH, all this talk about skill in GW is somewhat laughable in a sense, I mean other than playing an interrupt build(reflexes), there is really no skill involved(meaning true to the meaning of skill) and its much more on thinking ahead and tactics. Experience plays a lot of factors, and by experience, I mean that players have learned from, alot of players out there have played a while and are still in the same place they started.

that if he tried playing, say for example's sake a Warrior/caller properly and then tried playing a "bunny-thumper", he may be surprised as to how much difference there is in terms of skill level required.

Triple Smite, maybe even pushing into dual smite, is a gimmick build.

Da Cebuano · Aug 12, 2006, 01:49 PM // 13:49

Its true that a balanced is much harder to play as you're set up w/ no one singular purpose, but inorder to play this "balanced" and excel in it, you must play other builds to know its strength and weaknesses in order to know how to match up against it using a "balanced". Yes, I agree on the stuff about balanced is alot harder to play w/ alot of experienced needed, I never even argued against that. Mine was simpler to address the negative attitudes against playing builds that aren't "balanced", as I see no wrong in it. Yeah sure, in general it requires less "skill" to play, but so what? Should we all be operating at the same level w/ the same substances at all times? I find the viewpoints of alot of pvpers questionable at times. They complain of "cookie cutter" "gimmick" builds yet they never fail to not realize that "balanced" itself varies very little of at all from most "balanced" teams, therefore "cookie cutter".

I am pro balanced team, for reasons basically any other pro balance players have. I don't condone other people for playing anything other than that though, as I play for fun and even w/ competition, if a build excels, then why put it down cause its competing at the same level w/ "arguably less work" than a team w/ balanced is playing. Like I said its mainly egos that do the talking.

As for the skill bit, I am firm on my stance that GW in general isn't really about user skill, as I put in the same line as starcraft of any other games that require strategy, its more on insight, coordination and tactics. Skill is a term I use for playing games like counterstrike or FPS in general or playing sports like hoop(basketball). In GW, the more you play, the more experience you get out of knowing what to do, but any semi intelligent player who doesn't put himself down(and understands whats going on), can play GW and if he is w/ similar people at top level. Problem is that there aren't too many out there, but that shouldn't be mistaken for anything else.

I get what you're saying about the balanced warrior and the smite thumper bit, but I really could care less about the difficulty, as they're different classes w/ different styles of play on different build and roles. There are many different classes for a reason, don't confine yourselves in a pre set thinking. I mean its always like this though, everyone thinks the same and shuns whoever is different until a popular figure does something different then excels.

Thom · Aug 12, 2006, 02:35 PM // 14:35

Few points Cebuno:
-FPS players have been narrowly defining "skill" ever since the E3 for Everyone event. If anticipation and tactics aren't a skill, I don't know what is. Any football player will tell you the importance of these things. There are several technique things which can greatly improve play if learned and practiced. Under your definition of skill, poker and chess players are hopelessly skilless.

-Experience plays a large role in developping skill, but you can only learn to the level of your competition. If you are playing in the 300-400 range gvg, you'll be learning less than top 50 gvg.

-Beating a gimmick build with a balance build is skillful. A strong gimmick build forces you to respond quickly. A poor tactical or strategic move normally means the end of the match. Gimmicks are stong largely because they can easily dictate play. As Squiget pointed out, you can't let the opponent dictate play which often means reactive play. Organizing a quick response isn't exactly easy, especially if you haven't thought through counters to "odd" builds.

-Gimmicks have a bad reputation for good reason. Mid/low level teams can use these builds to make up for lack of player skill and be relatively successful. Getting quicklly steamrolled because of a tactical mistake is discouraging. Builds that give you the feeling that you never had the chance aren't going to be liked, while losing to a team who is tactially superior isn't too bad.

-Beating a bad gimmick isn't that rewarding. They aren't that flexible and fighting them is a chore. You have to play really methodically to avoid a silly mistake. You could call this ego, but what's the problem with a bit of ego.

-Playing gimmicks in the middle of the ladder isn't the best way to improve player skill. Some teams can run a top level gimmick, but this is the exception.

Phelann · Aug 12, 2006, 04:05 PM // 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Cebuano

TBH, all this talk about skill in GW is somewhat laughable in a sense, I mean other than playing an interrupt build(reflexes), there is really no skill involved(meaning true to the meaning of skill) and its much more on thinking ahead and tactics. Experience plays a lot of factors, and by experience, I mean that players have learned from, alot of players out there have played a while and are still in the same place they started.

This is incorrect. Pre kiting/awareness/positioning and other things top guilds do all involve skill, not thinking ahead/tactics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

I've played with and against smiters who played in triple smite and just button-mashed after selecting the warrior. They sucked and their teams died.

In the lower tiers of the ladder I imagine a triple smite could punch through most defenses before their offense can really start to dent your one boon prot. However, a more competent offense is going to be hitting you constantly with damage and won't break immediately. The smiters in a triple smite build function as a large part of the build's defense, so they need to play as active prots, watch for spikes, and AoE pressured targets.

That sounds about right to me. IMO, the triple smite build does dictate some of the battle's terms purely on its own strength. In order to beat it you have to react fast and choose an offensive strategy that cripples their pressure, or your monks are going to break very quickly.

That said, I think this sort of offensive strategy is required in most builds at the high end. If you're sitting around letting the enemy play the offense their way, you're going to lose against a good team.

Heres another way to look at it.

Without triple smite what rank was your guild?

With triple smite what rank is your guild?

If there is a very large difference, you're running a gimmick.

JR · Aug 12, 2006, 05:35 PM // 17:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Cebuano

TBH, all this talk about skill in GW is somewhat laughable in a sense, I mean other than playing an interrupt build(reflexes), there is really no skill involved(meaning true to the meaning of skill) and its much more on thinking ahead and tactics.

Truly the opinions of someone at the lower end of the ladder.

The amount of micro-management, awareness and reflexes needed to play any serious character build well really can't be attributed to "tactics and thinking ahead".

Wasteland Squidget · Aug 12, 2006, 07:13 PM // 19:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ventius Hozza

IMO, 1 smiter is fine. 2 smiters is pushing it and 3 smiters (to me) means that the build is a gimmick and the team that is running them is rating farming.

My guild has always had a chance to run gimmick builds in GvG's but unanimously, we all decided that running our current balanced build really makes us better as players, rather than playing some mash-the-keyboard gimmick build.

IMHO, you will probably learn a lot more playing against top teams than rank 200 teams, regardless of your build. Seeing the way they play their offense and counter you is going to teach you a great deal more, in my opinion. Win or lose, the fact that we can play against teams like iQ, Te, and other good guilds nightly has done wonders for our skill as players.

Your basic 'balanced build', in my experience, functions as an adrenal spike that splits well. Almost all of the two-warrior builds I've met in the top 100 have gotten their kills through spike, and pressure only sets in if a team is slow on the res, breaking, or just weak to begin with. Most pressure builds can spike, but it often isn't possible for a spike build to apply real pressure.

I don't know what you guys run, but if it's anything like most balanced builds I've met, you're going to get an awful lot of games going to VoD because of Ritualists. Maybe you'll win those games and maybe you won't, but the time it takes to get through them makes it extremely difficult for a balanced build to win a lot of games quickly. That's why even top teams who don't often lose on balanced pull out the Thumpway or some other gimmick build at times - no matter how good you are, if you have limited playtime and want to climb the ladder you sometimes need a build that wins quickly.

Personally, with the recent resurgance of pressure builds that don't seem to be gimmick OR balanced, I've started to think those terms are entirely useless. You don't have a gimmick or a balanced - you have an adrenal spike, a pressure build, a caster spike, a split, a gank build, or whatever other build concept you can create. Obviously some builds can play more than one kind of offense, but each build needs to be evaluated on its own merits, not on some ever-changing set of rules about what takes 'skill.'

That doesn't mean we're planning to run triple smite forever. We run what's fun and what teaches us to be better players, and once we stop learning new tactics and coordination with triple smite we'll undoubtedly play something different. I'm personally a fan of KGYU's current build concept (apply massive degen and distracting shot the heal party with Distortion Rangers that are immune to death), but not entirely sure what we'll run next.

To finish this post on a good note, JR is right.

Phelann · Aug 13, 2006, 02:51 AM // 02:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

Your basic 'balanced build', in my experience, functions as an adrenal spike that splits well. Almost all of the two-warrior builds I've met in the top 100 have gotten their kills through spike, and pressure only sets in if a team is slow on the res, breaking, or just weak to begin with. Most pressure builds can spike, but it often isn't possible for a spike build to apply real pressure.

This is imo incorrect, at least with the top guilds that run balanced. There is ALOT of pressuring from those that run balanced, with good reason. Yes they also throw spikes in there to break their opponnent, but there sure is a hell of alot of pressure.