Curse

JR · Jun 23, 2006, 12:17 PM // 12:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

Why the hate over gimmicks? We ran a balanced build with 2 Migraine mesmers while we were ranked 1000 odd, we played a rank 800+ bspike team on Burning Isle (our home turf), and we won, because both our mesmers had Cry of Frustration and the cripshot had blackout

Cry of frustration owns spike teams. It's not particularly hard to counter spike teams (one skill will do it) and they tend to fold over if a few spikes in a row fail.

Running two Migraine Mesmers with Cry is about as much of a direct counter as you can get to any kind of caster spike build. However; not everyone runs this.

The simple fact is that it requires less skill to get up the ladder faster with a gimmick than it does with a balanced build, and that is just wrong. You will suck ass in tournament play, but that is beside the point.

Mr Urthadar · Jun 23, 2006, 12:57 PM // 12:57

Well, I am surprised at the number of people that are `down with' the gimmic builds. I still think the `chameleon' skill would be a nice change - and I don't think it would make things worse.

It was mentioned that proper gameplay would be broken and that gimmics would "work-around" in-match skill changes. I just don't think that would be the case 100% of the time. My mind `tunes-in' on spikes as a gimmic.

I'm not sure how something like r-spike would `work-around' shields up + CoF. I'm sure someone will explain it to me.

And JR's idea of a two-minute skill adjustment is great for people that are holding down page 1. But the rest of us who fight guilds most have never heard of (like mine

) -- what are we to do?

You're fighting 'Ask A Ninja In Pajamas' - you have 2 minutes to adjust your skills. lol - adjust them to what

.

ju

JR · Jun 23, 2006, 01:01 PM // 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Urthadar

You're fighting 'Ask A Ninja In Pajamas' - you have 2 minutes to adjust your skills. lol - adjust them to what

.

If you don't know who they are then they obviously haven't got a reputation for running a certain build, so you wouldn't have to. Hell, if you don't know who they are they are probably bad anyway.

Aug · Jun 23, 2006, 03:11 PM // 15:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

If you don't know who they are then they obviously haven't got a reputation for running a certain build, so you wouldn't have to. Hell, if you don't know who they are they are probably bad anyway.

No one knows who 95% of the ladder is, I'd bet. What's the lowest rank? I've heard of guilds in the 5000+ range. Who knows anything about anyone outside the top couple hundred (2-300)? 300/5000 is a pretty low percentage (6%). Your suggestion would be nigh useless for the majority of the playerbase.

And we're likely to be just as bad (or good) as they are if we're fighting them! Doesn't the system attempt to pit equally ranked guilds against each other?

I really don't see how a "Chameleon" skill would be bad. Swapping from one gimmick to another would not be that easy, with just 1 skill to toy with. And it would severely hurt "gimmick" builds, as a balanced build would come prepared for everything, and then have 1 extra slot per char to really punish the gimmick they run up against.

JR · Jun 23, 2006, 03:29 PM // 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aug

No one knows who 95% of the ladder is, I'd bet. What's the lowest rank? I've heard of guilds in the 5000+ range. Who knows anything about anyone outside the top couple hundred (2-300)? 300/5000 is a pretty low percentage (6%). Your suggestion would be nigh useless for the majority of the playerbase.

And we're likely to be just as bad (or good) as they are if we're fighting them! Doesn't the system attempt to pit equally ranked guilds against each other?

As I have already said; if you don't know the guild, then chances are they are not well known for running a gimmick, so you wouldn't want to change skills. And to be absolutely blunt this is a solution for a problem at the high end of ladder play, low ranked guilds have nothing to do with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aug

I really don't see how a "Chameleon" skill would be bad. Swapping from one gimmick to another would not be that easy, with just 1 skill to toy with. And it would severely hurt "gimmick" builds, as a balanced build would come prepared for everything, and then have 1 extra slot per char to really punish the gimmick they run up against.

I simply think that is over-complicated and not particularly user friendly.

Mr Urthadar · Jun 23, 2006, 03:48 PM // 15:48

I dont think it is complicated or not user friendly. Barring these complaints though -- there is at least `some' mild agreement that something *ought* to be done.

If nothing is done, then what happens? "Well everyone is running 3x smite, so we have to run the anti-3x smite build and hope we hit the middle of that bell curve."

Things look bleak if new professions and skills are added, but the dynamics of GvG remain the same. We'll simply see copycat builds or minor variations of copycat builds. Then the game becomes a matter of `who can run the build the best' and not so much a game of strategy. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to live with it.

ju

unienaule · Jun 23, 2006, 03:49 PM // 15:49

Well, what if the "gimmick guilds" picked up one/two other gimmick(s) that were similar but required different counters? Would it still be that useful that you could beat them that way, or would it make sense for them to be rewarded for being able to play multiple different gimmicks effectively? Would they still be "gimmick guilds"?

Aug · Jun 23, 2006, 04:02 PM // 16:02

What if the Chameleon'd skill had to be one of 3 skills, selectable within the first X minutes (~5?) of the match?

Quote:

I simply think that is over-complicated and not particularly user friendly.

As for complicated... seriously? For who? Certainly not for the top 300 on the ladder... which is all you seem to care about, anyway.

Just as an aside, this should probably be in the Suggestions forum, as a Chameleon like skill would be useful in all aspects of the game, including PvE, not just 8v8 GvG.

Orphan Anthem · Jun 23, 2006, 04:19 PM // 16:19

If your having a problem with a gimmic build, either start using that gimmic OR change your build. the problem isnt always the other persons fault, maybe its your own. Ofcorse there are some things that ARE broke, sayyyy the Imperial hall.

To make things simple, dont bring a KNIFE to a GUN fight.

"ok we lost 3 out of 5 matches to r-spike put shields up in place of X"

Divineshadows · Jun 23, 2006, 04:22 PM // 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orphan Anthem

If your having a problem with a gimmic build, either start using that gimmic OR change your build. the problem isnt always the other persons fault, maybe its your own.

I find that oftentimes it is not the build that is the issue in countering other well known builds. Usually it is not lack of counters, but rather that guilds lose to these types of builds because of player skill, play-style, and tactics.

Tortoise · Jun 23, 2006, 04:37 PM // 16:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.R.

As I have already said; if you don't know the guild, then chances are they are not well known for running a gimmick, so you wouldn't want to change skills. And to be absolutely blunt this is a solution for a problem at the high end of ladder play, low ranked guilds have nothing to do with it.

I honestly don't see why low ranked guilds have nothing to do with it. If gimmick builds are a genuine problem in the ladder then they are as big as a threat for low ranked guilds as for the high ranked guilds. True, the effect might have more significant effects on the High end of the ladder (and determine whether or not a certain guild qualifies) but that is no reason to suggest a solution that will only help the high tier guilds. I find it poor taste to diminish the value of wins and losses for non-high tier guilds. There are undoubtedly guilds out there that there are working hard for their rank 300 place. There is no reason at all to diminish the value of the effort they put in, even if some other players are genuinely better. A solution to a problem should be a solution for all players. If a guild would have been ranked 300 if it had encountered no gimmicks but is now ranked 400 then that IS enough of a significant difference for me.

High end competetion is all fun and dandy but it should not be the sole determining factor where this game is going.

Secondly: I don't think your suggested solution would work out that great. A guild that is currently running gimmicks can easily switch to similar gimmicks. It doesn't take that long to switch between spikes or it isn't that hard to run a thumpway. The only thing a 'skill swap before game' would do is force gimmick guilds to run a couple of gimmick builds. The problem would be just as predominant as before: if you get the 'You will face Deer in Combat' message you still won't know whether 'Shields Up!' or 'migraine' will be the way to go.

Thirdly: there is something very peculiar about that solution. If my previous point wouldn't turn out to be true there would still be a problem: The better it works, the less tactical an actual fight becomes. Let's say you fight Rift and know they'll be running fastcast spike. So you pack cry, heavy enchant removal, etc... You face them off and as expected: you're able to counter them and eventually waste them. The better you were able to prepare, the more GuildWars has turned into Rock, paper, scissors. Your solution is suggested as a means to make it less of a Rock, paper, scissors game but that could easily backfire. The better a guild is able to counter a certain gimmick, the less tactics are needed.

Fourthly: This wouldn't only effect gimmick builds. It would affect a lot of 'balanced' builds as well. If you know EW is running a hex heavy balanced you'll swap in a couple more expel hexes. Hence EW will be forced to run a couple of builds as well. They might run a few balanced builds but they could also take along a couple of gimmick builds. Whether a build is balanced or a gimmick: if you know what you're facing you can design an anti-build. The fact that it might be 'harder' to do when facing a balanced doesn't make it less possible.

The above points show me one thing:

- Everyone continues to run the same builds -> The idea is effective but doesn't solve anything from a tactical/skill point of view.

- Everyone starts running a couple of different builds -> There won't be an easy way to swap out a couple of skills to counter gimmicks. In the most extreme scenarios you might think you're gonna be facing EW with a balanced build and take along Expel but then fight a thumpway. The situation would be much more similar to playoff matches where the 'surprise effect' becomes a very important factor to who will win. Not very desiriable if you ask me. If anything this would give an extra boon for gimmick builds. If I know I'll be fighting iQ instead of some random guild I'd be much more motivated to suddenly swap over to something very unusual.

Finally I'd like to point out that there should be room for gimmicks. A ladder that only consists out of balanced builds has lost a lot of it's flavor. I find it a bit strange that alot of the 'play to win' crowd that doesn't feel bad about exploiting 'bugs' suddenly deems playing balanced builds more 'skillfull'. If a guild can get into the playoffs with a gimmick then good for them. When EW won the finals with the playoffs the complaints they were running a gimmick were deemed unnecessary and silly. I don't see how that would be different when it comes to ladder-play. The only reason when complaining about a gimmick is legitimate should be when it is overpowered and then we don't need a 'skillswap' system. Then we need a balance update...

That having said: I can understand the concern though. There seems to be a fear that the more this game will progress, the less viable balanced builds are gonna become because the variety of needed counters will increase. I don't share that concern yet. Though the variety off gimmicks is undoubtedly gonna increase in the future, so will the flexibility of balanced builds increase. Factions has not only affected gimmicks, it has offered balanced builds a wider choice of weapons as well. A somewhat decent example is the current shift in monk backlines: a blessed light and a boon prot are a bit more flexible then just two boon prots. In fact, just the opposite might hold true as well: in the future we could get some skills that would make balanced builds the only viable builds to play... Would we be complaining then?

Aug · Jun 23, 2006, 04:38 PM // 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orphan Anthem

If your having a problem with a gimmic build, either start using that gimmic OR change your build. the problem isnt always the other persons fault, maybe its your own. Ofcorse there are some things that ARE broke, sayyyy the Imperial hall.

To make things simple, dont bring a KNIFE to a GUN fight.

"ok we lost 3 out of 5 matches to r-spike put shields up in place of X"

You have no guarantee that match 6 will be vs. R-Spike. So it'd be likely foolish to slot Shields Up! in place of Skill X. Assuming that Skill X was a counter to some other commonly encountered build. If skill X just flat out sucked, then yes, it makes sense to place a counter skill in that slot.

kryshnysh · Jun 23, 2006, 07:25 PM // 19:25

I like JR's idea. I think it has some good potential, but it is a bit more geared towards stopping gimmick builds, which you have to admit are the problem in the first place, and I'm as of yet unconvinced they are bad at where they're at. It does change a bit of how you metagame against your opponents, and definitely goes after any guild that plays the same (or very similar) builds night in and night out.

Question One: With this change, would it be feasible for teams to focus on running a number of gimmicks of a similar type? Or would it be too hard to counter usage of two similar gimmicks? I can imagine outfitting your skill bars to stop maybe 2-3 gimmicks, but at some point you run out of space. Does this push us into enough gimmicks that the team is "balanced" even though they run a number of gimmicks? I'm not saying their build is "balanced" just that their playstyle/ability isn't just one or a few gimmicks.

Its been brought up you could have two characters, one a Me/E fast cast air, one a ranger spiker. Your entire team build could run one match with FC Air, the next with ranger spike (swapping before hitting the "enter battle" button). You can design a build to stop both of these, but also Blood Spike, FoC Spike, and every other spike? Lets presume the guild sticks to only gimmicks, in our case, always a ranged spike. Does this hurt the guild that changes gimmicks randomly but selects only from a small set of gimmicks?

I would imagine that learning the ins and outs of multiple spike builds would be a bit harder than one spike build, but I believe I've seen at least some guilds run Ranger Spike last season and Me/E FC Air this season. Is running two spikes and being able to switch every other night more admirable than running one spike all the time?

Question Two: This idea seems to add a playoff like atmosphere of countering your opponents. Two minutes to slightly modify our build, we know we're facing Guild X who usually plays some form of balanced, but best when overloading you with hexes and crummy at spiking anything down. How do we change our build to maximize our chances? Lets worry more about those hexes than about a spike. Is this "countering" or planning what you want ladder play to be about as well? Personally I think my (poorly formed) opinion is yes.

This would encourage teams to play a variety of build styles, not just builds, even within a "balanced" framework. You may not be able to run the same balanced build day in and day out, but would that be a bad thing or a good thing?

Or would this just lead to a rock-paper-scissors with regards to style of play? Team that plays almost exclusively with heavy pressure > spike > defensive team that can stop heavy pressure > heavy pressure... and thus the only team that does best is one that can do them all pretty well, but not known for any one thing (and couldn't do any one of them as well as another team).

I think this helps the entire ladder as much as any change that directly impacts the top of the ladder helps the rest of the ladder. It really does mean that gimmicks are good for farming your rank up, but pretty bad at keeping it up high, but unfortunately if you're not at the top of the ladder doesn't hinder gimmick builds all that much. At present, its easier to keep your rank up pretty high with a gimmick than some might state here... Can we expand this to work for the entire ladder? Without it I don't think its likely to get implemented.

Byron · Jun 24, 2006, 06:45 AM // 06:45

Guilds don't win tournaments by running "gimmick" builds. Maybe in the final game of the final match, but not the whole tournament.

If you run a "gimmick," you are also running the risk of being countered. A good example was iB running dual attunement air spike against EW, who was running desecrate enchantments. So, in that respect, I don't see any "gimmick" builds being overpowered atm.

Balanced builds, IMO, are trying to be the most effective blend of counters and "gimmicks". A balanced build designed to counter only a balanced build is ill-advised, as is one designed to only counter spikes. Compromises have to be made, in accordance with the status of the game. When the math is wrong, Anet fixes it.

The problem, as I see it, seems to be that people cannot come to terms with losing a match; no competitive team wants to accept that they were bested, only that they lost due to some "gimmick." I feel the problem would be fixed if people were more concerned with the effectiveness and execution of their builds than of their spot on the ladder. There's my two cents.

Spook_Cell · Jun 24, 2006, 07:23 AM // 07:23

Triple smite is overpowered atm. Gimmick or no?

True, guilds won't win a tournament with a gimmick build but they are getting into the tournament with gimmicks.

The reason people hate gimmicks so much is basically gimmicks are tactics-lite. They take one aspect of a GvG battle and push that to the extreme (often dmg) whereas to counter it you have to be tactics-heavy (split, disrupt, disenchant, gank, etc, etc).

So to many players it becomes a David vs Goliath confrontation in their minds and how terrible a story would that be if Goliath wins. Feeling like you loss to a weaker team will often get you angry and upset.

Gimmicks aren't unbeatable but you can only run so many counters in a build before you start spreading yourself too thin, some counters are rather general thankfully but others are very build specific (shields up!).

And finally I agree that paying attention to only the first 2-3 pages of the ladder is rather shortsighted. Doing so might be good for the tournament but it's bad for GW and it's bad for overall GvG activity.

around · Jun 24, 2006, 09:30 AM // 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

Running two Migraine Mesmers with Cry is about as much of a direct counter as you can get to any kind of caster spike build. However; not everyone runs this.

The simple fact is that it requires less skill to get up the ladder faster with a gimmick than it does with a balanced build, and that is just wrong. You will suck ass in tournament play, but that is beside the point.

If spike is so prevalent, why not have a mesmer with Cry? If you don't like spikes, always come prepared, just in case you face one.

JR · Jun 24, 2006, 01:31 PM // 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by spawnofebil

If spike is so prevalent, why not have a mesmer with Cry? If you don't like spikes, always come prepared, just in case you face one.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, simply that it is not something that can fit into every build. There are other builds you might be more bothered about countering, that take different counter measures.

yuna of spira · Jun 24, 2006, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

If you don't know who they are then they obviously haven't got a reputation for running a certain build, so you wouldn't have to. Hell, if you don't know who they are they are probably bad anyway.

This kind of defeats your point though....because youre problem as I see it is that people with less skill can go up the ladder with gimmick builds quite easily. But you also said that if youve never heard of them before they probably suck, thus youre admitting that skill takes a large part out of a gimmick build. You see the contradiction? With youre original premise that the problem is that people can easily get rank with gimmick builds, yet you don't care about people you've never heard of....there are still going to be plenty of times in which you would come across a gimmick build....but it happens to be that they suck so you would beat them. If thats the case in your mind....then it seems the real issue is people of the same skill level using a gimmicky build and having a bit of an edge because of it.

The other issue I wanted to quickly bring up is about future expansions. ANET said they plan to come out with plenty of expansions (2 a year i think) for obvious financial reasons (no monthly fee). Thus, as the game continues on and more expansions come out....there will be more and more gimmicky builds out there that can be played....so soon enough there will not be only 3 gimmicky builds controlling the metagame (currently i see fast cast air, soul barbs, and smite), but more like 20. In that case if Guild wars is to survive its gvg experiences in the future and still have people interested in it....something definitely needs to be done in terms of maps or other utilities in order for balanced builds to be prevalent....otherwise theyll all just have counters to everything out there and no offense whatsoever.

I don't think the skill switching in the middle of battle is a good thing as it is something i could see abused, though i think the 2 min or 1 min warning could be good....I just think it should be a lock at that point that the guild presented is the guild you must play....otherwise people would just cancel or logout so that they wouldnt have to play a certain team. If it happened where you all quit then you should still lose the points as if you lost, or if some people log out....then act as if it were an err 7...and they play with less players. I dont know....maybe even that could be abused....but I do know that in the future gimmick builds are gonna be everywhere on the ladder unless balanced is given a chance....whether thats a good thing or bad.....I dont know....maybe its cool that gimmick builds would be out there more...add some flare and competition to see if you can overpower something.

Tortoise · Jun 24, 2006, 09:04 PM // 21:04

Question: have balanced builds gained or lost power since factions?

I must admit I am not certain about the answer. A lot of the discussion here presupposes that gimmicks will start running more and more rampant the more skills got introduced into the game. Perhaps it is still too early to see the full impact factions will have on the meta-game but I don't feel as though balanced builds suffered from it's introduction. Perhaps the fear that more skills will always lead to more gimmicks is unfounded?

MrScaRy · Jun 25, 2006, 04:20 AM // 04:20

I think that in the beginning when "gimmick" builds start out.. noone will know how to counter them because they haven't faced them before and don't exactly know its weaknesses. However, as time goes on, more people will use it, the balanced build guilds will then know how to counter it. You could probably draw this on a graph and the efficiency level of a gimmick tops in the beginning and gradually goes down.

With things like RI, people would know to counter this by adding 1 or 2 convert hexes into their build and kite a bit. With triple smite, would be to either drain enchantments, or just pressure on their healer and necro and then go for the smiters later. The smiters have a strong offense but a weak defense and 3 smiters aren't going to be enough when the opposing team focuses on the healer monk.