Guild Wars 2

http://strawpoll.me/1250372 – because why not? :P

Flaunt your design intuition by answering this question:

• Do you think development should strive to achieve 1v1 balance?
  – Why?

I think the 1v1 people’s point is that in a basic 5v5 with 3 nodes 1v1s are EXTREMELY common, and being shut out because you’re not “the right build” to do it just isn’t very fun/engaging for some. The nature of the beast is that this is all opinion so no one is going to have a right answer… Juts an answer that will appeal better to some rather than others…

Yes. Because losing the match is very often less important than losing a 1v1. In a team, you’re never sure of how much you contributed. In a 1v1, it’s all you baby. Forget team balance. It should_only_ focus on 1v1s because it’s far more satisfying.

nerf rock, paper is fine
greets, scissors

yiishing.9057:

nerf rock, paper is fine
greets, scissors

That’s only true if your game actually follows a rock/paper/scissor balancing approach, which very few MMOs do for a very good reason. Running up against hard-counters is no fun.

While people always love to spout about “team-balance” etc. I think that by focusing on 1v1 balance, you can balance team-fights by extension. This is especially easy in a game without dedicated healers.

What I mean by this is that a class that dominates 1v1 is probably also overpowered in team-fights.

Also what devs need to understand is that players will always evaluate balance around 1v1 scenarios. Balance those and people will be more content than when balancing around something as intangible and abstract as “team quality”.

Dee Jay.2460:

While people always love to spout about “team-balance” etc. I think that by focusing on 1v1 balance, you can balance team-fights by extension. This is especially easy in a game without dedicated healers.

how is 1v1 = teamVSteam by extension? there is single target, there is aoe, bounce, support. now imagine 4 single target team vs 4 aoe team, each aoe strong enough killing each single target alone. wonder what happens when their aoe supersedes one on another in damage and healng.

by extension it wont happen. in fact a big question is if even with effort you can get both, single and team balance. answer most likely is no, you cant.

Erebos.6741:

• Do you think development should strive to achieve 1v1 balance?

Can you be more precise? I don’t understand what 1v1 balance means. What criteria need to be satisfied for the game to have “1v1 balance”?

I’m not being sarcastic, I just don’t know exactly what you are asking.

Yes, there are things like AoE that need to be taken in to account.

But the thing is the “we balance around team dynamics” approach NEVER works.

On the other hand I’ve played plenty of games where 1v1 balance is taken into account and that ended up with reasonable team balance as well.

The whole sentiment of “balance” is based on 1v1. The entire lens of how we perceive that is balanced and what is OP is based around duel situations. That’s just it. You can talk about balancing around teams all you like but at the end of the day it’s how well you fare in a duel that really dictates how you perceive balance.

I am frustrated – what do you people mean when you talk about 1v1 balance?

merkator.9206:

I am frustrated – what do you people mean when you talk about 1v1 balance?

I mean that when fighting a 1v1 fight you either lose but still have the feeling it was a “fair fight” and that you had a “fair chance”.

When you win you feel like you bested your opponent because of personal skill rather than kittenty balance or exploitative mechanics.

We can all agree in an ideal world every game would be balance with 1v1, but I think that is beyond the abilities of this game.

The way they designed certain mechanics makes it nearly impossible to do a 1v1 balance. They will have to gut out the game and completely redesign certain aspects like conditions damage, traits and certains skills and I don’t see Anet dedicating the resource to fix that. Maybe in guilds wars 3 aka Tyria they will finally realize that conditions should not be a main source of damage.

Dee Jay.2460:

Yes, there are things like AoE that need to be taken in to account.

But the thing is the “we balance around team dynamics” approach NEVER works.

On the other hand I’ve played plenty of games where 1v1 balance is taken into account and that ended up with reasonable team balance as well.

The whole sentiment of “balance” is based on 1v1. The entire lens of how we perceive that is balanced and what is OP is based around duel situations. That’s just it. You can talk about balancing around teams all you like but at the end of the day it’s how well you fare in a duel that really dictates how you perceive balance.

I would love an example of an MMORPG that had good 1v1 balance because most MMORPG have always been designed with the premise of rock paper scissor.

silvermember.8941:

We can all agree in an ideal world every game would be balance with 1v1, but I think that is beyond the abilities of this game.

The way they designed certain mechanics makes it nearly impossible to do a 1v1 balance. They will have to gut out the game and completely redesign certain aspects like conditions damage, traits and certains skills and I don’t see Anet dedicating the resource to fix that. Maybe in guilds wars 3 aka Tyria they will finally realize that conditions should not be a main source of damage.

Dee Jay.2460:

Yes, there are things like AoE that need to be taken in to account.

But the thing is the “we balance around team dynamics” approach NEVER works.

On the other hand I’ve played plenty of games where 1v1 balance is taken into account and that ended up with reasonable team balance as well.

The whole sentiment of “balance” is based on 1v1. The entire lens of how we perceive that is balanced and what is OP is based around duel situations. That’s just it. You can talk about balancing around teams all you like but at the end of the day it’s how well you fare in a duel that really dictates how you perceive balance.

I would love an example of an MMORPG that had good 1v1 balance because most MMORPG have always been designed with the premise of rock paper scissor.

Name one game where you have a hard-counter triage where you have practically no chance in winning if your class comes up against your counter-class?

Because I can name numerous ones that have reasonably balanced 1v1s.

• World of Warcraft
• The Elder Scrolls Online
• Warhammer Online (exception: Bright-Wizards)
• Guild Wars 2 (despite a terrible meta most classes have a reasonable shot at killing any other class).
• pretty much all FPS games.
• even TF2, despite its different classes, doesn’t have a true hard-counter dynamic.

RTS games are the only games I can think of that still hold on to a rock-paper-scissor concept. Aka. Colossi counter Zerglings, Zerglings counter Siege Tanks, Siege Tanks counter Colossi etc.

Dee Jay.2460:

silvermember.8941:

We can all agree in an ideal world every game would be balance with 1v1, but I think that is beyond the abilities of this game.

The way they designed certain mechanics makes it nearly impossible to do a 1v1 balance. They will have to gut out the game and completely redesign certain aspects like conditions damage, traits and certains skills and I don’t see Anet dedicating the resource to fix that. Maybe in guilds wars 3 aka Tyria they will finally realize that conditions should not be a main source of damage.

Dee Jay.2460:

Yes, there are things like AoE that need to be taken in to account.

But the thing is the “we balance around team dynamics” approach NEVER works.

On the other hand I’ve played plenty of games where 1v1 balance is taken into account and that ended up with reasonable team balance as well.

The whole sentiment of “balance” is based on 1v1. The entire lens of how we perceive that is balanced and what is OP is based around duel situations. That’s just it. You can talk about balancing around teams all you like but at the end of the day it’s how well you fare in a duel that really dictates how you perceive balance.

I would love an example of an MMORPG that had good 1v1 balance because most MMORPG have always been designed with the premise of rock paper scissor.

Name one game where you have a hard-counter triage where you have practically no chance in winning if your class comes up against your counter-class?

Because I can name numerous ones that have reasonably balanced 1v1s.

• World of Warcraft
• The Elder Scrolls Online
• Warhammer Online (exception: Bright-Wizards)
• Guild Wars 2 (despite a terrible meta most classes have a reasonable shot at killing any other class).
• pretty much all FPS games.
• even TF2, despite its different classes, doesn’t have a true hard-counter dynamic.

RTS games are the only games I can think of that still hold on to a rock-paper-scissor concept. Aka. Colossi counter Zerglings, Zerglings counter Siege Tanks, Siege Tanks counter Colossi etc.

I don’t remember making a claim about anything. You made a claim about games with 1v1 balance, I simply asked for proof in the sphere of MMORPGs. Certain genres lend themselves extremely easy for 1v1 balance. What I want is an MMORPG example.

FPS games can easily have 1v1 because rarely do you need more than a few shots to kill.

I will tell you this, I hate how in the current system conditions are so destructive and there is no hope of winning against some condition spams. I am not saying gw2 is better this isn’t really a gw2 vs other games. I just want is an MMORPG example of this 1v1 you seem to be preaching about.

My point is you can’t apply 1v1 concept from other genres to MMORPG, the way those other genres work are entirely different from the way fps for example work.

TESO hasn’t been released yet. It takes time for players to understand how the underling mechanics works, so you really can’t used it as an example. It is similar to the illusion that gw2 had a great meta at beta and initially at release which is not true.

WOW: really?

You can’t balance around 1v1 . If your class is good for team fights and horrible in 1v1 that means you would buff it right ? Buffing something that was already good becomes overpowered .

yiishing.9057:

nerf rock, paper is fine
greets, scissors

paper>rock
rock>scissors
scissors>paper
warrior>rock
warrior>paper
warrior>scissors

merkator.9206:

Erebos.6741:

• Do you think development should strive to achieve 1v1 balance?

Can you be more precise? I don’t understand what 1v1 balance means. What criteria need to be satisfied for the game to have “1v1 balance”?

Sorry for the delay, and thank you Dee Jay for your answer.

To summarize:

1v1 balance affords equal capability/effectiveness between classes/professions.

A simplified example is the game Rock, Paper, Scissors. This game is balanced for 1v1 because both players have full capability/ability to choose Rock, Paper or Scissors.

This game is also considered balanced for XvX, because both teams have equal capability.

XvY balance is like if players could only use 1 of the 3 abilities; Rock, Paper or Scissors. So if Jon could only use Rock, and Lily could only use Paper, Lily will consistently beat Jon because Paper hard counters Rock.

Realistically, I don’t see how true 1v1 balance is achievable. To what extent will the game be considered fully balanced on a 1v1 scale? Will every combination of traits/skills/weapons be able to fight fairly against every combination? If not, at what point will the balance be “good enough” on a 1v1 scale?

Also, while your argument of the aggregate of the whole (i.e. if each individual instance is balanced then the whole must be balanced) seems logically sound, there are conditions in which this can be proven to be false. Others in this thread of pointed this out with various examples.

Finally, I believe that balancing beyond 1v1 duels is a necessity. In order to allow for diversity in playstyles, certain tactics will inherently be stronger or weaker than others (tactics being a combination of a build and its usage). People seem to laud league of legends a lot, so I’ll use them as an example. Is every single character capable of fighting on equal ground with every other character? And is every combination of character and items capable of fighting with any other combination of character and items (purely in a 1v1 context)? What makes any sort of team play balanced is the balance of the teams themselves.

Another question on 1v1 balance. In what capacity are all 1v1’s deemed balanced? Even in the single game mode of GW2 tPvP, there are multiple ways to fight and gain points. With 1v1 balance, will this mean that every combination of profession/traits/skills/weapons be able to fairly fight any other combination in any tactical capacity/situation? If this is what you mean, how will we even begin to approach this balance while also maintaining a diverse combination of builds for every profession?

With enough pre-planning, thought and research you can balance all things 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 5v5 and large scale at once.

However what you can’t have are so many hidden variables, and often less “choice” involved in building a character. Sometimes true balance is worth that to players, other times it isn’t. It really depends on what the audience wants the most…

ronpierce.2760:

With enough pre-planning, thought and research you can balance all things 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 5v5 and large scale at once.

However what you can’t have are so many hidden variables, and often less “choice” involved in building a character. Sometimes true balance is worth that to players, other times it isn’t. It really depends on what the audience wants the most…

The bolded part plays into my point. I’m arguing that this is an unrealistic proposition. Even then, it is not necessarily the case that the aggregate of the constituents will yield a like result when viewed as a whole.

Unless your second part comes into play. In which case, you can toss out almost all diversity among builds to achieve this sort of balance. At that point, why have 8 different classes? Why have 5 trait lines within each class? Why the diversity in weapons? Yes, I’m engaging in reductio ad absurdum but you should see my point now.

Some nice points from Rogue.

To clarify: does that mean you think balanced 1v1 IS good game design? — However unrealistic/achievable or close there to, and therefore perhaps not a smart goal?

You can do it with many classes. Case in point a rarely-known arena game called “Bloodline Champions”, which had 1v1 (if you set it up yourself) 2v2, 3v3, 5v5s and 10v10 modes. Best balance I’ve ever seen in a game.

It had:
- Different characters.
- Different roles (dps/ranged/tank/healer)
- 30 or so different characters all vastly different.

What it lacked:
- The decision to customize your character.

Balance is easy. Balance with variables a person can change around will likely never be balanced. Whenever you’re making several decisions about what to take, generally with the more decisions made, superiority will spawn. When superiority spawns, you create imbalances. Even this can be remedied but… Its really hard and honestly… with the life span of games in their prime and how little praise someone who cracked that code would get… It’s not even worth it.

Is balancing 1v1? I say yes, but only if you support 1v1 in the game. If there is no 1v1 in a game, why bother? Just make sure every class has roughly equal opportunity it excel in several fields, then you’ll have a good game.

@ Ronpierce — Very logical post in my opinion.

ronpierce.2760:

Is balancing 1v1? I say yes, but only if you support 1v1 in the game. If there is no 1v1 in a game, why bother? Just make sure every class has roughly equal opportunity it excel in several fields, then you’ll have a good game.

Do you consider 1v1 a component of GW2 SPvP for example? — Where in matches such encounters are likely to happen, and if so, do you think balanced 1v1 would benefit this game type over strictly balanced 5v5?

p.s. You’ve got me interested in that game!

This is a necessity in a game where 1v1s are both common and important part of the game. Gw2 is such a game due to the silly conquest mode. 1v1 balance was not important at all in gw1.

Erebos.6741:

@ Ronpierce — Very logical post in my opinion.

ronpierce.2760:

Is balancing 1v1? I say yes, but only if you support 1v1 in the game. If there is no 1v1 in a game, why bother? Just make sure every class has roughly equal opportunity it excel in several fields, then you’ll have a good game.

Do you consider 1v1 a component of GW2 SPvP for example? — Where in matches such encounters are likely to happen, and if so, do you think balanced 1v1 would benefit this game type over strictly balanced 5v5?

p.s. You’ve got me interested in that game!

To answer your question, as I did the poll, yep. I totally feel like GW2 SHOULD have been balanced for 1v1. Balancing for 1v1 makes it easier to balance things like 2v2 and so forth because after you balance 1v1 you only have to gauge a few things:
- how much do classes support one another. This needs to balance out.
- how much a class can deal splash damage. If damage is balanced 1v1 one class can’t do the same damage AoE and the other only single targeted.
- how well each class can survive in a cluster.

I don’t mean to make it sound so easy, but it’s easier than trying to just balance a cluster of diversity that isn’t balanced at its core. Plus 1v1 skirmishes are often the most fun in a game, for me, because they have a true sense of skill involved to win. But when 1v1 isn’t balanced and one build totally wrecks another that sense of battle enjoyment diminishes for both players. Of course this is all my opinion.

ronpierce.2760:

Of course this is all my opinion.

Currently I strongly agree with your opinion.

I’ll hold out a while before choosing a “best answer” in case my opinion is otherwise influenced.

I do wish the game could be balanced around 1v1 but I just don’t see it possible with all the different variables. Games that have an amazing 1v1 system like dragon nest and c9 are amazing. I wish GW2 could have a dueling system like them. They are such awesome matches to watch/play.

how are they going to balance 1v1’s when nobody (besides custom arena players) is running 1v1 builds….?

ens.9854:

how are they going to balance 1v1’s when nobody (besides custom arena players) is running 1v1 builds….?

That’s sort of where “pre-planning” comes into hand with what I said. Where they are NOW… I mean they’re pretty far out from ANY sort of balance now… :/

ronpierce.2760:

To answer your question, as I did the poll, yep. I totally feel like GW2 SHOULD have been balanced for 1v1. Balancing for 1v1 makes it easier to balance things like 2v2 and so forth because after you balance 1v1 you only have to gauge a few things:
- how much do classes support one another. This needs to balance out.
- how much a class can deal splash damage. If damage is balanced 1v1 one class can’t do the same damage AoE and the other only single targeted.
- how well each class can survive in a cluster.

I don’t mean to make it sound so easy, but it’s easier than trying to just balance a cluster of diversity that isn’t balanced at its core. Plus 1v1 skirmishes are often the most fun in a game, for me, because they have a true sense of skill involved to win. But when 1v1 isn’t balanced and one build totally wrecks another that sense of battle enjoyment diminishes for both players. Of course this is all my opinion.

I bolded the contradictory statements. In the first you acknowledge that classes support each other. That very statement shows that considerations OTHER than 1v1 need to be taken into account. This flies in the face that 1v1 balance is paramount and also serves as another example of why the aggregate of 1v1 balance will not be equal to 5v5 team balance (which is what proponents are claiming).

Second statement: This is contradictory because the for 1v1 balance the aoe user will need to be able to deal the same amount of single target damage as their opponent (non-aoe). However, in a team fight, the aoe user will now deal significantly more damage to each target in their aoe’s, as much as a single target damager would need to deal to the same number of targets SIMULTANEOUSLY.

Likewise, if the aoe user needs to scale down to accommodate for multi-target engagement, the single target user will be at a distinct advantage in 1v1 combat. This would unbalance these two classes on a 1v1 scale.

Point: You cannot have absolute 1v1 balance and absolute team balance in a game with diversity. These two examples should further solidify my case. To put it another way, there are 3 factors being discussed:

1) 1v1 balance
2) Team balance
3) Class/build diversity

Essentially, you must pick two as having all 3 is absolutely unfeasible.

EDIT: fixed bolding

ens.9854:

how are they going to balance 1v1’s when nobody (besides custom arena players) is running 1v1 builds….?

Design can mostly be theorized with some in-house testing. This hindrance only cripples feedback from the playerbase by lack of experience/testing — which is helpful for determining potential design oversights.

The changes they would have to make however would be massive.

Master of Timespace.2548:

This is a necessity in a game where 1v1s are both common and important part of the game. Gw2 is such a game due to the silly conquest mode. 1v1 balance was not important at all in gw1.

1v1 isn’t always a necessity in the way you may think it is. I’ve been in many situations where I, or someone on my team, could not handle a 1v1 fight they needed to simply because they were either being outplayed or countered via build. This is where teams come in: we switched/rotated positioning so someone else better suited for the fight can take over. That are we adjusted our overall strategy to accommodate that particular weakness.

GW2 still comes down to team play. Yes, individual strengths and skill are necessary, but it is still a team game, NOT a collection of 5 1v1 matchups on a single map.

Nope. You can have a “core”, how all classes play out without their “support” being taken into consideration, purely 1v1. Then; factor IN support, each class has to be able to support EQUALLY in a fashion that doesn’t break that balance (this comes with testing, trial and error and careful planning). And you have to make sure each class doesn’t exceed too much in a group setting.

1 and 2 should check out just fine. 3, you can have diversity, BUILD diversity, not really. I already said that. Allowing players to maximize and chose too much will always cause imbalance because SOMETHING will always be the superior option. I said in order to increase balance there has to be fewer choices to make on a given “character”, and less hidden benefits going on. That’s true, you can’t customize a character much when you want good balance, or to be fair is very HARD to do that realistically. I already said that though. I was discussing balance not customization diversity…

Erebos.6741:

Some nice points from Rogue.

To clarify: does that mean you think balanced 1v1 IS good game design? — However unrealistic/achievable or close there to, and therefore perhaps not a smart goal?

Balanced 1v1 that leads to aggregate team balance can only be good design if there is almost no variation between players, i.e. in today’s market it is not a good design (even sports don’t have players that can “1v1” any other player, they have specialists fulfilling a role on a TEAM).

ronpierce.2760:

Nope. You can have a “core”, how all classes play out without their “support” being taken into consideration, purely 1v1. Then; factor IN support, each class has to be able to support EQUALLY in a fashion that doesn’t break that balance (this comes with testing, trial and error and careful planning). And you have to make sure each class doesn’t exceed too much in a group setting.

1 and 2 should check out just fine. 3, you can have diversity, BUILD diversity, not really. I already said that. Allowing players to maximize and chose too much will always cause imbalance because SOMETHING will always be the superior option. I said in order to increase balance there has to be fewer choices to make on a given “character”, and less hidden benefits going on. That’s true, you can’t customize a character much when you want good balance, or to be fair is very HARD to do that realistically. I already said that though. I was discussing balance not customization diversity…

Again, you acknowledge that we would have to strip down all classes, traits, and skills to the essentials and limit diversity. Also, balance and diversity go hand in hand so both must be taken into account and discussed. Think bigger picture, what is the ultimate point of an MMO*RPG*?

Rogue.8235:

Erebos.6741:

Some nice points from Rogue.

To clarify: does that mean you think balanced 1v1 IS good game design? — However unrealistic/achievable or close there to, and therefore perhaps not a smart goal?

Balanced 1v1 that leads to aggregate team balance can only be good design if there is almost no variation between players, i.e. in today’s market it is not a good design (even sports don’t have players that can “1v1” any other player, they have specialists fulfilling a role on a TEAM).

That’s not true. You can have diversity. Play Bloodline champions. That game is amazingly balanced for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 AND 10v10. (Granted the game was never very big because it was an indy game and didn’t get much promotion which breaks my heart). You CAN have diversity. What you can’t have or, to be precise, you need far LESS of is “customization” of each character/role. For instance, you can’t get to chose what abilities and how to specialize them because maximizing your abilities in the first place is what causes imbalances. Too much player control to think out builds will cause imbalances. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t have different characters and still find ways to make the game interesting and deep. Its just not an easy thing to do.

Rogue.8235:

ronpierce.2760:

Nope. You can have a “core”, how all classes play out without their “support” being taken into consideration, purely 1v1. Then; factor IN support, each class has to be able to support EQUALLY in a fashion that doesn’t break that balance (this comes with testing, trial and error and careful planning). And you have to make sure each class doesn’t exceed too much in a group setting.

1 and 2 should check out just fine. 3, you can have diversity, BUILD diversity, not really. I already said that. Allowing players to maximize and chose too much will always cause imbalance because SOMETHING will always be the superior option. I said in order to increase balance there has to be fewer choices to make on a given “character”, and less hidden benefits going on. That’s true, you can’t customize a character much when you want good balance, or to be fair is very HARD to do that realistically. I already said that though. I was discussing balance not customization diversity…

Again, you acknowledge that we would have to strip down all classes, traits, and skills to the essentials and limit diversity. Also, balance and diversity go hand in hand so both must be taken into account and discussed. Think bigger picture, what is the ultimate point of an MMO*RPG*?

Well if you want balance in PvP, you do have to sacrifice freedom of choice… That’s just the nature of the beast… It doesn’t mean less diversity, it just means things would need to be pre-set. For instance power ranger and spirit rangers would have to be split and balanced, not a “make up” of traits you freely move around. Any time where “optimization” occurs, you’re causing an imbalance from “not optimized”.

The bigger thing you need to consider is in this system, while there is choice, it’s an illusion. It feels like choice but ultimately you still end up with a few determined builds and those are usually what the game ends up balanced around ANYWAYS… See what I’m saying? So then if you remove that from the picture, again, yes you can balance for 1v1 and 2v2. etc etc.

Choice is ALWAYS an illusion. You could have 30 balanced classes or 6 with 5 builds each that are viable. But when you have the 6 with 5 viable builds but “flexibility and diversity” you spawn hundreds of unbalanced non viable builds. Sure, that’s “diversity” but its meaningless…

Balancing an entire game composed of different formats of play on a SINGLE type of play?

I hated it in GW1, and I certainly despise it in GW2.

ronpierce.2760:

That’s not true. You can have diversity. Play Bloodline champions. That game is amazingly balanced for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 AND 10v10. (Granted the game was never very big because it was an indy game and didn’t get much promotion which breaks my heart). You CAN have diversity. What you can’t have or, to be precise, you need far LESS of is “customization” of each character/role. For instance, you can’t get to chose what abilities and how to specialize them because maximizing your abilities in the first place is what causes imbalances. Too much player control to think out builds will cause imbalances. However, that doesn’t mean you can’t have different characters and still find ways to make the game interesting and deep. Its just not an easy thing to do.

What you’re suggesting isn’t really diversity. What you want (or seem to want based on your wording) is one way to build up each role. In which case, we should only have 3 classes. The defensive guy, the damage guy, and some sort of offensive/defensive support guy. Yes, again it’s reductio ad absurdum, but that was what your argumentation truly is leading to. Would that be a game everyone is willing to play?

In spvp it seems obvious that it should be, since the only game type is conquest and 1v1’s will have to happen between people roaming around the side points. So if one class is so much better at roaming that people never run anything else for it then the game will end up with no diversity at all.

Which is probably why it takes so long to balance. Wvw this kind of thing doesnt matter at all, and pve players are entirely different too. Seems like it would be easier if there was an even bigger difference between pvp and pve/wvw abilities like there already is on some abilities.

Sizer.5632:

In spvp it seems obvious that it should be, since the only game type is conquest and 1v1’s will have to happen between people roaming around the side points. So if one class is so much better at roaming that people never run anything else for it then the game will end up with no diversity at all.

Which is probably why it takes so long to balance. Wvw this kind of thing doesnt matter at all, and pve players are entirely different too. Seems like it would be easier if there was an even bigger difference between pvp and pve/wvw abilities like there already is on some abilities.

So you want everyone to be great roaming duelists who can defend a point equally well and perform equally in all scenarios all the time? Not trying to be offensive but this is what you’re implying.

Rogue presents a good contention — claiming support isn’t accounted for in 1v1 balance.

I understand Ronpierce’s point of view however, suggesting the opposite is true, or rather, support doesn’t present an obstacle for 1v1 balance because it is situationally geared for multiple players, and thus wouldn’t otherwise see play.

I’m also considering how indirect means of support might affect balance.

I need more time to read through your post though (you guys post too fast for me). :P

The feedback has been great so far!

Erebos.6741:

Rogue presents a good contention — claiming support isn’t accounted for in 1v1 balance.

I understand Ronpierce’s point of view however, suggesting the opposite is true, or rather, support doesn’t present an obstacle for 1v1 balance because it is situationally geared for multiple players, and thus wouldn’t otherwise see play.

I’m also considering how indirect means of support might affect balance.

I need more time to read through your post though (you guys post too fast for me). :P

The feedback has been great so far!

I hope you’re proud of yourself. You’re feeding my procrastination by giving me what I love to do in life more than college work, debating. :P

Dee Jay.2460:

But the thing is the “we balance around team dynamics” approach NEVER works.

This gives me an excuse to once again bring up my favourite moment in Guild Wars 1: watching LUM vs WM game 2 on observer mode during the first tournament!
LUM got an early lead by bringing a build that was designed to fight as a team. They had a very strong backline, with a bonder monk (rarely seen in pvp!), who could reduce incoming damage for all his teammates as long as he was within range of them, and an elementalist spamming Heal Party as well as a dedicated healer and a protection monk.
By contrast, WM had 4 warriors, 2 rangers, and only a 2-monk backline. The warriors and rangers each carried their own healing skills, which was unusual in GW at the time, as monks were much better healers than any other profession so bringing a heal if you were an offensive class was seen as a wasted slot.
In the opening minutes of the game, WM got clobbered and suffer several deaths, as LUM was much stronger, having perfect counters to WM’s build (their mesmer was designed to punish WM’s warriors for using their healing signets) and a build that was much stronger together than the sum of its parts. However, WM took advantage of the self-sufficiency of their warriors to split and go round the back of LUM’s base, sneak in and kill their NPCs. This forced LUM to send people back to deal with them, and, with their team being so interdependent and reliant on the synergy between their various skills, they could not hold WM back when they weren’t all together. They started suffering deaths, until WM slowly clawed their way back into the lead. Eventually LUM suffered a wipe, and WM was able to kill their guild lord before they respawned. It was the most exciting half hour of gaming I’ve ever watched!

So yes, balancing around team fights rather than 1v1 can work. GW1 is proof of that. If that match was a simple team deathmatch with no secondary objectives, LUM would have won by having hte better 8v8 build. But because the secondary objectives gave WM more tactical options, they were able to turn things around.

The main point of this is that GW2 shouldn’t be balanced either for 1v1 or around 5v5 or 20v20 or any other number: it should give the players the flexibility to come up with the builds they want. Currently, team support builds are very underplayed – practically non-existent in tpvp. Even guardian bunkers tend to be selfish bunkers (they provide some team support but they’re mainly there for their own personal survivability and their ability to stay alive and contesting a point). The game’s mechanics allow for team support builds (although they are arguably underpowered), but the conquest game mode makes them impractical, and rewards selfish gameplay. If we ever actually get TDM, we’ll probably see support builds flourish more.

ronpierce.2760:

I hope you’re proud of yourself. You’re feeding my procrastination by giving me what I love to do in life more than college work, debating. :P

I’m feeding my own procrastination lawl!

For one I’m supposed to be moving house atm! =D

manveruppd.7601:

Dee Jay.2460:

But the thing is the “we balance around team dynamics” approach NEVER works.

This gives me an excuse to once again bring up my favourite moment in Guild Wars 1: watching LUM vs WM game 2 on observer mode during the first tournament!

- snipped due to message length -

So yes, balancing around team fights rather than 1v1 can work. GW1 is proof of that. If that match was a simple team deathmatch with no secondary objectives, LUM would have won by having hte better 8v8 build. But because the secondary objectives gave WM more tactical options, they were able to turn things around.

The main point of this is that GW2 shouldn’t be balanced either for 1v1 or around 5v5 or 20v20 or any other number: it should give the players the flexibility to come up with the builds they want. Currently, team support builds are very underplayed – practically non-existent in tpvp. Even guardian bunkers tend to be selfish bunkers (they provide some team support but they’re mainly there for their own personal survivability and their ability to stay alive and contesting a point). The game’s mechanics allow for team support builds (although they are arguably underpowered), but the conquest game mode makes them impractical, and rewards selfish gameplay. If we ever actually get TDM, we’ll probably see support builds flourish more.

Reading the description, that’s an excellent display of a team build adapting to both the terrain and their opponents’ weaknesses. While I see your point, that balance shouldn’t focus on specific # vs specific #, there does need to be an overall balance between team strategies/synergies. At no point within that game was there a balanced 1v1 fight. This can be seen by target selection whenever one player tried to quickly take down another single player (usually monk). Also, the game was won due to adaptability and superior positioning, matching their strengths to the opposition’s weaknesses (to which I’m inferring that there is no true 1v1 balance in most combinations of matchups in that game). This kind of balance should be the focus, the bird’s eye view of team strategy.

With this view, you have builds that have strengths and weaknesses, which entails that the individual players have battles they should seek out or avoid to take advantage of their strengths and exploit others’ weaknesses. 1v1 balance would not allow for such tactical positioning and exploitation to exist, as every single person would be evenly matched by every other person all the time, regardless of any environmental or circumstantial factors.

Team balancing over 1v1 balancing would entail that, yes, every build has their counters, but no build would outshine any other so much so as to be the epitome of all combat styles in a single instance. That is to say, no one class is so overpowered that it is a must have for every circumstance, every map, and every team composition without regard. What we want is a variety of adaptable strategies, playing to the strengths of our own fairly unique playstyles, that take advantage of our combined strengths. We need the strategic and tactical play that is exploiting the other team’s weaknesses. We need the ability to knowledgeably apply our team’s strengths where they need to be applied.

This is how GW2 should be balanced.

You guys are silly.

Not taking into account the game mode and so balanancing strictly 1v1 is just a shortcut, you get worse quality but its easier.
Either way, its not the game’s issue, the devs are failing in an entirely different area than this.
They can’t make good gameplay…
They want passives and long duration imunes.
They want low skill specs to be top tier.
That is the game’s issue.
Putting the focus on 1v1 balance won’t change that.

PS:
Warhammer was not balanced for 1v1s.
Like at all.
The devs all played bright wizards or one or two other order toons and said kitten off to every other class.

Rogue.8235:

Likewise, if the aoe user needs to scale down to accommodate for multi-target engagement, the single target user will be at a distinct advantage in 1v1 combat. This would unbalance these two classes on a 1v1 scale.

This is true if “the AoE user” could only deal AoE damage, but 1v1 balance wouldn’t insinuate such disparity.

Ideally AoE would be secondary, situational abilities with the point of expanding depth.

garethh.3518:

Either way, its not the game’s issue, the devs are failing in an entirely different area than this.
They can’t make good gameplay…
They want passives and long duration imunes.
They want low skill specs to be top tier.
That is the game’s issue.
Focusing on 1v1 balance won’t change that.

I agree balancing for skill is a problem in the current meta, but 1v1 balance also matters in this regard as otherwise builds may counter one another which doesn’t adhere to skill as the determining factor of combat, even IF those builds required skill to use effectively.

Rogue.8235:

1v1 isn’t always a necessity in the way you may think it is. I’ve been in many situations where I, or someone on my team, could not handle a 1v1 fight they needed to simply because they were either being outplayed or countered via build. This is where teams come in: we switched/rotated positioning so someone else better suited for the fight can take over. That are we adjusted our overall strategy to accommodate that particular weakness.

This is very interesting as the problem was solvable and it took smarts to do, which makes me wonder if this is an acceptable stance for addressing balance.

I just want fewer hard counters personally. Sure don’t have a totally balanced 1v1, but don’t have it just be class/build A beats class/build B.