Curse

Thom · Jun 09, 2006, 12:10 AM // 00:10

I would say that the nerfs after the tournement indicated that there was something broken causing the spike to be dominant. Anet has fixed broken spikes on numberous occasions and is taking spike into account while designing new skills.

MrBiggums · Jun 09, 2006, 01:12 AM // 01:12

The thing people don't like about the pure spike guilds is that they spike because that is all they can do. If they could run a good balanced they would......but they can't.

Patrograd · Jun 09, 2006, 06:59 AM // 06:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBiggums

The thing people don't like about the pure spike guilds is that they spike because that is all they can do. If they could run a good balanced they would......but they can't.

I take it from this comment that you have never played against EW or RUS? These guys will smash your face whether they are playing spike, or balanced, or degen or whatever it is that they decide to run that day.

Teams run spike in ladder play for ratings farming, as 95% of the teams on the ladder dont have the first idea of how to play against this style of build and it is just really easy wins. Even alot of teams in the top 50 in my experience are just easy meat for a decent spike team. And then everyone complains about them running a lame build in the same way that the HA scrubs complain about IWAY or blood spike. You cant win HA without having a build and a tactical plan to cope with IWAY and blood spike, and in exactly the same way you wont get to the top of the ladder without having the build and the tactics to cope with spike, whether ranger, caster or adrenaline based. You know you're going to play against it at some point, deal with it or lose.

if spike is so easy then you should run it and rush up the ladder. If you dont want to, then build and plan to counter it. It is relatively easy to counter, learn how to. These are the only choices a team has imo. Leave the grumbling to the scrubs who refuse to learn how to play against it

JR · Jun 09, 2006, 09:07 AM // 09:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrograd

I take it from this comment that you have never played against EW or RUS?

I don't think he was including them as 'pure spike guilds who can't play anything else'.

Patrograd · Jun 09, 2006, 10:05 AM // 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR-

I don't think he was including them as 'pure spike guilds who can't play anything else'.

Well, until Christmas i dont think i ever saw RUS playing anything other than air spike which they ran in both tombs and GvG, but they managed to adapt to something different at the time when obs mode first came out and everyone saw how the top sides beat spike teams (gale warriors and domination mesmers at that time). Up until that time EW were also for the most part a team that carried a heavy caster based spike, even if not the traditional pure spike. Again, they managed to adapt.

For quite some time spike wasn't viable at all in GvG (with the exception of a good mobile aggressive ranger spike perhaps). Even a very average team could stick gale on a warrior and blackout on a mesmer and beat a spike team with ease. Then gale and blackout have been nerfed, because lets face it the meta of dual surge-dual gale warriors was incredibly stagnant, either you ran that or lost, and after that nerf suddenly spike was viable again. This is imo a good thing, a good healthy variety of viable builds is what makes the game interesting and challenging. If it went back to how it was with only warrior/eles and domination mesmers as viable characters then I think I'd give up playing tbh.

At the end of the day, GvG build designers need to look to their counters. I think it was Ensign who said that Guild Wars is a game of counters (if not then apologies to him). I think when you are designing a new build then the very first starting point should be, how are we going to play when we face the common builds? How will we counter smite? How will we counter fc air? how will we counter ranger spike? How will we counter blood spike? How will we counter degen? How will we counter adrenaline spikes?

I think that if you sat down and wrote out the best skills to counter each of these, you would quickly see that there was a pattern developing of skills cropping up on multiple lists, and that the number of skills you needed to bring to have a reasonably viable counter strategy to each of these popular builds is actually quite low, and many of them can easily be run on secondary professions, allowing plenty of scope for running whatever kind of build you see fit. I also think that you would find that a large number of these skills are *already* included in most builds, but that people aren't using them as counters, maybe because they havent thought of them as such.

granor · Jun 09, 2006, 06:43 PM // 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Egg Shen

Feeling things are "cheap" is scrub talk. I'm only referencing the Play to Win article by saying that and I'm not actually calling YOU a scrub. But I feel it was one of the more valid points in that article.

From a fellow student of playing to win. (there is actually an entire web site by the guy who wrote the acticle.)

I will have to clarify there is a big difference in saying something is cheap in a scrub way wich refers to losing to the cheap tatic because lack of skill or willingness to change.

Saying something is cheap from a game balance point of view suggests the game breaks down somewhat because of the cheap tatic and the game would be better for everyone if the tatic was removed.

Is spike something you just have to learn to deal with and does it make the game better or not? Are the questions at hand.

Iraqalypse Now · Jun 09, 2006, 07:05 PM // 19:05

cheap is something thats is highly effective with little playskill. I'm thinking "press buttons, win". Touch Rangers are cheap because they ignore prot - you don't have to know how to target switch vs prot. Smiters are cheap because most of the time you are just spamming spells on a warrior. Obsidian Flame spike is cheap - have everyone cast ob flame at 2, drop tons of wards for passive defense.

Now there are spike builds that aren't cheap, and those involve doing something active other than participating in the spike. Healing between spike, supporting with blood ritual/bip, condition removal, applying conditions, shutting people down. These make the spike builds not cheap, because it means that your playskill has more of an influence on the match result.

Egg Shen · Jun 09, 2006, 09:34 PM // 21:34

Even if we accept your personal definition of what cheap is (and I don't), there are some major problems w/ what you're saying. First of all, as I mentioned before, depending on your perspective anything can be cheap. A shock/axe warrior probably isn't a cheap build by your definition, but I guess I don't understand how much skill it takes to hack on people until your adrenaline is charged, and then press T, followed by 1,2,3,4 to knock the called target down and unleash a frenzied adrenaline combo on them (one of the most damaging spikes in the game). You've got the most DPS and the best armor, how fair is that? Just because their axe doesn't bypass protection spells, you think that requires a ton more skill to play than a touch ranger? C'mon. I guess because a touch ranger has to manage their energy carefully w/ a pet or OoB, I'd call that a wash w/ regard to skill required to be effective.

But that's not really my point. My point is that you seem to be looking down at people for using the most effective spells (and ease of use does fall into the 'effective' category). To use Magic: The Gathering as my reference point once again, it's like you're trying to prove how good you are by handicapping yourself w/ a deck full of common cards, and then getting mad at the people who simply go w/ the best/most broken/most powerful rare cards and smash you with them. If something is both easy to play, AND powerful, why wouldn't people run it? Worrying about how much skill it takes to play it is beside the point, as you should simply be playing to win given the skills available to everybody.

If a 'highly skilled' group is getting beaten by a less skilled group due to choice of builds, then why wouldn't the 'highly skilled' group switch to the same cheap build? That way, they could (w/o fail due to their cheap build), crush the less skilled group at their own game, and also beat teams even MORE highly skilled than themselves. . . unless of course the group that's more highly skilled than they are is ALSO running the cheap build. Then they could be in trouble. If what I'm saying sounds ridiculous, it's because it is, in fact, ridiculous.

Iraqalypse Now · Jun 09, 2006, 09:46 PM // 21:46

Shock axe takes skill because of target calling, counting down for others to assist, and correct positioning and target switching.

I'm not looking down at people for using the most effective spells, I'm looking down at people who cover their lack of playing skill by choosing a build that eliminates a lot of playskill requirements.

If you want another magic: the gathering reference, if a highly skilled control player gets beaten by suicide black, it doesn't mean that the control player should start playing suicide black. Suicide black pretty much asks if you can deal with large creatures and heavy disruption on the first couple turns, and if so, you win. Doesn't make it a better deck than a good control deck, it just makes the game played differently.

Egg Shen · Jun 09, 2006, 10:10 PM // 22:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

Shock axe takes skill because of target calling, counting down for others to assist, and correct positioning and target switching.

Yes, but all those things are done by all target callers. All those things can technically be done by a touch ranger. There's nothing intrinsic to the shock/axe build that automatically makes it . . . un-cheap. A toucher COULD be a target caller, but since it's nowhere near as potent a build as the shock/axe warrior (imo), most high level guilds wouldn't run it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

I'm not looking down at people for using the most effective spells, I'm looking down at people who cover their lack of playing skill by choosing a build that eliminates a lot of playskill requirements.

But how do you know? How do you determine that? If you're in a gvg situation and you get beat by a cheap build, and later that same group beats you w/ a build you don't consider cheap, does that make a difference? Is it okay to use FoC spike if you're EW since you clearly have skill?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

If you want another magic: the gathering reference, if a highly skilled control player gets beaten by suicide black, it doesn't mean that the control player should start playing suicide black. Suicide black pretty much asks if you can deal with large creatures and heavy disruption on the first couple turns, and if so, you win. Doesn't make it a better deck than a good control deck, it just makes the game played differently.

EXACTLY!

Iraqalypse Now · Jun 10, 2006, 12:20 AM // 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Egg Shen

Yes, but all those things are done by all target callers. All those things can technically be done by a touch ranger. There's nothing intrinsic to the shock/axe build that automatically makes it . . . un-cheap. A toucher COULD be a target caller, but since it's nowhere near as potent a build as the shock/axe warrior (imo), most high level guilds wouldn't run it.

What makes shock/axe un-cheap and touch rangers cheap is that warriors can be countered by protection prayers and block/evade, while touch rangers can't. Touch ranger builds sacrifice the raw power of warriors for removing the need to worry about prot and block/evade. High level target callers are hampered by prot, stances, ward vs meelee, but they deal with it and kill through it. If they can't, they call for tactics like splitting etc to force the other team to do something besides camping the wards or chaining aegis. Touch rangers are just "get target, press buttons, deal damage".

If my reference to magic wasn't clear enough, suicide black is the touch rangers of Magic - they don't care about enchantments, or wards, or stances, they care about how quickly you can heal. Suicide Black doesn't care about your ability to stop combo decks, or your ability to win counter wars or outdraw your opponent, it cares about your ability to handle a couple large creatures under heavy disruption.

My biggest beef with touch ranger builds is that its ability to win is highly dependent on two things: is their monk backline 2 boons or a boon and a heal, and do they have large amounts of movement control (pretty much ward v foes, since its the best defensive snare in the game).

There are a couple spike builds that I actually like, mostly fast cast air spike, FoC necrospike, and various rainbow spikes. The reason I'm ok with them is because each of them requires something more than everyone using the same skill at the same time. FoC spike would be cheap if there was no hex spamming and healing from the necros. Fast Cast air spike would be cheap if there was no blinding flash spam or intensive gale coordination. Rainbow Spike would be cheap if all the characters in it didn't have so much to do between spikes - necro uses blood rit, ranger interrupts, ele drop wards/heal party, mesmer does shutdown, etc.

around · Jun 10, 2006, 06:17 AM // 06:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

What makes shock/axe un-cheap and touch rangers cheap is that warriors can be countered by protection prayers and block/evade, while touch rangers can't. Touch ranger builds sacrifice the raw power of warriors for removing the need to worry about prot and block/evade. High level target callers are hampered by prot, stances, ward vs meelee, but they deal with it and kill through it. If they can't, they call for tactics like splitting etc to force the other team to do something besides camping the wards or chaining aegis. Touch rangers are just "get target, press buttons, deal damage".

Touch rangers are screwed if someone casts Diversion on them. A single spell effectively shuts them down. Likewise with Blackout. At least a show/axe can still hack away at someone. I can, therefore, by YOUR definition, call Diversion and Blackout cheap when cast on a touch ranger because they counter an entire build with just one skill.

stueyman2099 · Jun 10, 2006, 07:31 AM // 07:31

You're forgeting the other inherent disadvantages that a touch ranger has, namely that vamp touch vamp bite is all it can really do. It gains the advantage of most warrior hate not working on it, but it has the disadvantage of not being able to spike, having less utility, as well as having other counters that normaly don't affect warriors completley screw them over. It's not a warrior, so don't treat it like one.

As far as the lame builds thing goes, if there is a build that will get a win on a certain map every time, it falls on Anet to fix this problem, not the players for using that tactic.

Byron · Jun 10, 2006, 07:53 AM // 07:53

I don't understand the "power" of touch rangers:

orsion>vamp touch

And orison is famous for lacking. Gimmick builds work in gimmicky ways.
A typical warrior combo of KD->deep wound->hard hit will kill touch rangers, or at least put them low enough that they OoB themselves dead.

Egg Shen · Jun 10, 2006, 09:27 AM // 09:27

Not that I'm defending touch rangers, because I actually DO consider them to be a bit of a gimmick build (I figure if one skill can totally shut you down and you just hope somebody doesn't bring it, you're probably running something that can safely be called a gimmick), but there's a bit of an issue w/ what you're saying Byron.

First of all, Orison isn't necessarily 'greater' than vamp touch. Vamp touch, for the same energy cost, both damages and heals for 65. Certainly having a self sufficient character like a toucher makes life easier for a monk and also does a halfway decent job of putting out some DPS. Second of all, that KD, Deep Wound, Hard hit combo gets ruined by things like throw dirt and/or whirling defense. Both of which are commonly packed by touch rangers.

That said, I'm not really trying to defend touch rangers. I'm trying, in my round-about way, to shed some light on what I consider to be a weird hypocricy re: the use of language like 'gimmick' and 'cheap' to describe builds. Otherwise intelligent posters make themselves seem weak and sad and I truly don't understand it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

What makes shock/axe un-cheap and touch rangers cheap is that warriors can be countered by protection prayers and block/evade, while touch rangers can't. Touch ranger builds sacrifice the raw power of warriors for removing the need to worry about prot and block/evade.

Couldn't this be called balance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

High level target callers are hampered by prot, stances, ward vs meelee, but they deal with it and kill through it. If they can't, they call for tactics like splitting etc to force the other team to do something besides camping the wards or chaining aegis. Touch rangers are just "get target, press buttons, deal damage".

Again, very little of this has to do w/ the actual builds in question. If a team based around touchers wants to be at all successful, the target caller will have to be worrying about things other than prot spells and ward vs. melee (ward vs foes is definitely something they have to consider, as you noted, as well as a myriad of hexes and conditions). If they have any hope of winning, and they quite often don't because the build just isn't that amazing, then the caller had better damn well be just as skilled, probably even more so, than the shock/axe warrior. If the build of a toucher is such a great equalizer, why are there no high level teams running it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

If my reference to magic wasn't clear enough, suicide black is the touch rangers of Magic - they don't care about enchantments, or wards, or stances, they care about how quickly you can heal. Suicide Black doesn't care about your ability to stop combo decks, or your ability to win counter wars or outdraw your opponent, it cares about your ability to handle a couple large creatures under heavy disruption.

No, the reference was clear. But the problem is that even though control decks require the most in-game skill (which I believe I've already addressed), IT DOESN'T MATTER if the current metagame puts suicide black or white weenie on par w/ control in terms of overall effectiveness. Why NOT play the more forgiving, equally potent, deck? Nobody cares that you had a sweet control deck and all the skill necessary to play it if it can't stop a simple aggro rush in the first four tuns. And, to go on a slight tangent, if anything is considered cheap in magic in my experience, it's control decks w/ their ability to counter any spell in the game w/ a 2 casting-cost counter, and sometimes combo decks. A strange dichotomy that in Magic, the decks which require the most skill to play are the least fun to play against as they make opponents feel helpless. . . much like a spike build might.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqalypse Now

There are a couple spike builds that I actually like, mostly fast cast air spike, FoC necrospike, and various rainbow spikes. The reason I'm ok with them is because each of them requires something more than everyone using the same skill at the same time. FoC spike would be cheap if there was no hex spamming and healing from the necros. Fast Cast air spike would be cheap if there was no blinding flash spam or intensive gale coordination. Rainbow Spike would be cheap if all the characters in it didn't have so much to do between spikes - necro uses blood rit, ranger interrupts, ele drop wards/heal party, mesmer does shutdown, etc.

Well, this is certainly the first time I've heard flashbots used in an argument for un-cheapness! Hehe, seriously though, there are just builds and your reactions to them. It's really as simple as that. A-Net will change things if there are truly balance issues (as they've recently done to a certain guild base). If people want to label things a certain way for whatever reason, I guess it's not my job to change their minds.

Carry on with the listing of "lame" builds.

Nightwish · Jun 10, 2006, 11:29 AM // 11:29

IMO, if all types of teams (spike/balanced) have the same advantage on all maps, then why bother having those different maps? I hope they are not just for looks..

For tournament play, there are two possible choices:

1 - Completely random maps, hence, guilds have to design a more balanced build or they can take the risk and go for a specific build.

2 - Less random maps, guilds will have an idea whats coming for them so they change their build accordingly.

Some people view EW run a spike build that holds an unfair advantage over iB due to map design. But EW just being "play to win". If there is anything wrong with the outcome, it is the non random map procedure.

But perhaps Anet did want the guilds to prepare beforehand rather than applying tactics after the match starts..who knows..

yesitsrob · Jun 14, 2006, 12:49 PM // 12:49

I personally feel that a spike team has a large advantage on the burning isle map (I'd also say pressure builds too, but said build I am thinking about has been designed to cope with pressure on the same map), there is currently a team in the top 100 guilds now who is pulling in rating by drawing teams above them on their own map and beating them in an 8v8 match up (there could be more :\ ). Where as when not on their home map, against teams below them, they have been doing somewhat not as good.... (incapable of splitting well). To be honest, I have to say that I think running a build that _relies_ on your home map and beating significantly better teams because of it is a very lame ladder strategy... yet sadly, very capable of getting you into the top 50 without having to be that good

Lord Patch · Jun 16, 2006, 12:54 AM // 00:54

Whole lot of whining going on.....

It's funny even to hear people talking about "gimmick" and "cheap" builds. Especially when they whine about those builds beating "more skilled" teams. That's just a nice way to make yourself feel better when you're bested by another. "Well, actually, we are the better team. We lost because they cheated." Come on, Al Gore, get over it.

"Gimmick" builds are actually good builds. It's your job to figure out how to beat em. If you always lose to spikers or touch rangers or IWAY, then you aren't really all that skilled now are you? If you think a-net should change the maps so that certain builds won't have advantages, then what you really mean is that you want a-net to remove the advantage a team can gain by intuition, experimentation and the ability to come up with a "gimmick". What you really mean by "skill" is "no brains". Maybe a-net should just start over and make it fair. Let's just have teams come out, call "heads or tails?", flip the coin and see who one. Wouldn't that be nice and fair? No gimmicks. No "unfair advantage". No ability to use your brain to get the upper hand.

Maybe anet should change our diapers, too.......it's really not fair to have to sit in that all day, now is it?

Trelon Burg · Jun 20, 2006, 04:18 AM // 04:18

Skill or no skill, it falls to first time shame on you, second time shame on me for falling for it again. If you know its out there then you should be prepared to counter it whether skill wise or a tactics based counter. I agree some spikes are over powered, but everything in this game is beatable. Map advantage only goes so far. Back in their Rspike days, iA could win on the ice map or fire map with great ease and they in my opinion had a beautiful spike to watch, and I'm most certain it was not their build exclusively that lead to their success. It should also be noted, in my opinion, that alot of winning and losing comes down to skill and being able to contribute and do your part on your team. Execution is the greatest key though, you can't even tie your shoes without execution. A spike build requires execution and a balanced build does as well.

I'd like to say that FC air spike for instance is a gimmick build, but the balanced my guild, for instance, uses has beat it by just using tactics and I don't see a need to make an excuse if we lose when we know exactly what that team can do. Its our fault not theirs, so I recommend concentrating on being a better player not a better complainer.