Guild Wars 2

oZii.2864:

mrauls.6519:

Balance to me is every profession being capable of killing the other professions in a competent way

Then the game is balanced for you since you can counter any other build by changing traits and weapons. I don’t think there are any uncounterable builds. Professions on the surface need certain traits/weapons to counter other builds.

To expand on that, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to have a build that is just slightly above others if there’s a viable counter. A “perfectly balanced” game would most likely get stale, but if there’s something out there that is becoming more and more prominent then there’s a chance for a more obscure/underused build coming into the meta because it happens to counter it. We saw this happen with Condi Necros, there were 2 per team until Warrior’s were buffed to hard counter them. The problem currently plaguing PvP is that the metas we’ve had all come from how PvP is designed and it encourages builds that are not fun to many players.

Bump. Agreed with the post above, because it is mainly the design of conquest for both pvp and wvw that is unbalanced. And the classes must be balanced to be good at both of them which makes it even harder especially if you include pve as well. I think that perhaps Arenanet did not realise how much more complicated the balance of wvw and pvp was than pve.

I mean it’s easy to fix a class for pve just give it more dps but for pvp and wvw it gets much more complicated. Because of this power creep in the last patch many builds are over the top but it’s ok because they are all “overpowered” lol. The solution according to the elite pro players of this game is to learn to play.

Anyway please continue to debate the balance and meta of this game. Perhaps we can even find counters to the most commonly used builds so that players don’t have to play the same old builds and classes all the time. Thanks for the discussion and posts so far.

ricky.2679:

Bump. Agreed with the post above, because it is mainly the design of conquest for both pvp and wvw that is unbalanced. And the classes must be balanced to be good at both of them which makes it even harder especially if you include pve as well. I think that perhaps Arenanet did not realise how much more complicated the balance of wvw and pvp was than pve.

I mean it’s easy to fix a class for pve just give it more dps but for pvp and wvw it gets much more complicated. Because of this power creep in the last patch many builds are over the top but it’s ok because they are all “overpowered” lol. The solution according to the elite pro players of this game is to learn to play.

Anyway please continue to debate the balance and meta of this game. Perhaps we can even find counters to the most commonly used builds so that players don’t have to play the same old builds and classes all the time. Thanks for the discussion and posts so far.

The more I hear the “pro” players talk the less I value their input. I’ve played many, many games with conquest formats that work just fine because they give you a decent amount of area to work with. In GW2 ANet makes these maps that you use less than a 3rd of. I can’t blame people for going bunker and AoE spam when it’s what the game encourages. The builds we see right now aren’t necessarily “OP,” they just do what the gamemode encourages best. Rebalancing the classes is just putting a band-aid on the problem.

Many (not all) of the “best” players we see post on the forums tend to say nothing more than “l2p scrub” even though they know nothing about said player or how good they are. Not everyone is willing to dedicate the amount of time to GW2 PvP when they don’t find it enjoyable enough to do more than a few games in every now and then. These days, half the time when you lose it doesn’t feel like you got outplayed, it just feels like you got cheated. Other games I can lose and go “they played better than me;” I don’t get the same feeling in this one.

I think the biggest problem as has been discussed earlier is balancing for different skill levels. Because some players have better reflexes or more experience playing a profession. This means that it is not even the professions that are unbalanced but the actual players themselves.

So what I have seen Arenanet do is make very easy builds like condition bunkers that everyone can use. Then there’s zerker thieves, elementalists, bunker guards, etc, that take a bit more skill. The main problem as discussed in Sirlin’s book is balancing for skill.

This is very difficult and he said that by giving easier options that can work, but don’t work as well as something which requires more skill. That is balance and I think Arenanet know this and what we have is a game balanced for different skill levels.

That seems to be the logical way of thinking about the metas of this game in pvp and wvw. And to me it does seem balanced and if people complain they simply need to “learn to play”. But that does not mean that builds that require much more skill should faceroll everybody either.

So in conclusion Balance is very subjective but if you balance for different skill levels it becomes much easier. And that is why a game can not ever be truly balanced. Because players and people have so many different skill levels. At least that’s my opinion about this subject anyway.

ricky.2679:

Everybody plays for or against a profession and thinks it is Overpowered. Well I am simply going to say that is your opinion. There is no balance when everything is “overpowered”.

Arenanet will not listen to your complaints obviously biased against certain professions. Because all you want is for them to be nerfed and your own profession buffed. I will link “Playing to win” by Sirlin now.

Play to win, don’t be a Scrub

Either way, anet will never balance this game correctly. They do not understand what they created to achieve balance. Then you also slap on the fact that gw2 is not a finished product. Could go on with the notion of how they had more than enough time to finalise the product, but…..won’t bother.

This thread is totally wrong.
Balance is objective.

Most games just achieve balance using a set of rules to apply to evry skill and then proceed with SMALL exception that defines builds/professions.

In GW2 we have only exceptions and no rules with random attempts to balance with nerfs and buffs rather with logic and rules.

LordByron.8369:

This thread is totally wrong.
Balance is objective.

Most games just achieve balance using a set of rules to apply to evry skill and then proceed with SMALL exception that defines builds/professions.

In GW2 we have only exceptions and no rules with random attempts to balance with nerfs and buffs rather with logic and rules.

Can you back this up in any way, or are you just being divergent for the sake of it, again?
There’s quite some theory on game design, and you’re the first to argue that after you intentionally make a game imbalanced (which is what most MMOs do, and for a good reason), you can still objectively judge the balance by “simply” applying each skill to some rule-based modifier function.

An interesting question in that regard: Why is Blizzard still patching WoW’s balance so massively after 10 years then? Why is Rift’s balance all over the place? Why is TOR still undergoing so many changes? How come that, if “most games” do what you say, we don’t see any evidence of it?

I have the solution! get rid of all forms of passive uninterruptable healing that does not require the activation of a skill to start… problem solved

now its all down to skill and timing

Ozzy Toxin.3074:

I have the solution! get rid of all forms of passive uninterruptable healing that does not require the activation of a skill to start… problem solved

now its all down to skill and timing

Which only serves to prove the point of the thread… :P

As long as Anet does not split the game modes, it’s not important, if balance is objective or subjective, we will never get them!

Black Teagan.9215:

As long as Anet does not split the game modes, it’s not important, if balance is objective or subjective, we will never get them!

Even if the gamemodes were fully split, balance would still be impossible to achieve or even approach for all practical purposes.

The amount of chaotic complexity in a combat system like GW2’s is way too high to achieve something people would call balance. Curiously though, the same is true for DotA2 or LoL or so.
Just, with the lack of investment into a character (you throw them away after 10-60 minutes after all), people don’t mind if characters aren’t balanced. They don’t have to be.

Carighan.6758:

LordByron.8369:

This thread is totally wrong.
Balance is objective.

Most games just achieve balance using a set of rules to apply to evry skill and then proceed with SMALL exception that defines builds/professions.

In GW2 we have only exceptions and no rules with random attempts to balance with nerfs and buffs rather with logic and rules.

Can you back this up in any way, or are you just being divergent for the sake of it, again?

Check any competitive fighting games framelist and properties and you will see.
There is a reason why most mmorpgs are not esports.

LordByron.8369:

Check any competitive fighting games framelist and properties and you will see.
There is a reason why most mmorpgs are not esports.

They are different genre’s but fighting games have intended imbalances such as health and the character Tier list a few months after release is usually different later in the games life cycle. This doesn’t even need to be from patches or balance changes just players discovering new tech. GW2 has been out for 2 years if you look at SF IV after 2 years what was effective at release changed after 2 years. Using SF IV as another example I don’t know of any iteration when Dan was considered S-Tier but you will find many iterations of the entire SF series where Sagat has been highly considered S-Tier. Still they include Dan and haven’t buffed him to be S-Tier.

GW2 does very well IMO though because many builds and professions have a chance against many other builds and professions. Your chance rises if you where to counter pick your build (something that happens frequently in fighting games).

Also take MvC3 and one combo can lead to a full character kill with no counter only hoping your opponent drops the combos. Then you have a 50/50 when your next character comes to not get him wiped also. MvC3 is highly competitive and popular but anyone on the outside looking in on the MvC3 scene with just very basic knowledge of fighting games would think it is extremely imbalanced.

Still different genre’s there are something’s comparable and some that are not. You just have to consider the foundation that each is built on. The Top S-Tier fighting game character has the best chance against the field a D-Tier character has a chance against a S-Tier character but not as good as an A-Tier.

Anyway intended imbalances happen even in fighting games otherwise SF would be nothing but Ken’s and Ryu and there would be no variety which means interest dies quickly.

I think what get’s lost in the shuffle in regards to GW2 is the team aspect and hotjoins where you didn’t decide your team or opponents. So people end up fighting a team of 4 necromancers and 1 warrior and come to the forums to say “look at how OP necros are”.

oZii.2864:

LordByron.8369:

Check any competitive fighting games framelist and properties and you will see.
There is a reason why most mmorpgs are not esports.

They are different genre’s but fighting games have intended imbalances such as health and the character Tier list a few months after release is usually different.

Many FG has no health differences and Tiers are dictated by a matchup comparison.
Resulting in some 6:4 and really few 7:3 matchup.

If we had a 1vs1 matchup chart in gw2 we would see 9:1 everywhere.

Using SF4 as comparison won t work since is mostly execution oriented…
MvsCapcom was never a balanced game and infact had a huge scandal with some button mashers placing well in tournaments.

But where GW2 fails, is that there “reaction” and active playing has a too small role in the gameplay due to unbalanced skills, mechanics and traits.

LordByron.8369:

oZii.2864:

LordByron.8369:

Check any competitive fighting games framelist and properties and you will see.
There is a reason why most mmorpgs are not esports.

They are different genre’s but fighting games have intended imbalances such as health and the character Tier list a few months after release is usually different.

Many FG has no health differences and Tiers are dictated by a matchup comparison.
Resulting in some 6:4 and really few 7:3 matchup.

If we had a 1vs1 matchup chart in gw2 we would see 9:1 everywhere.

Using SF4 as comparison won t work since is mostly execution oriented…
MvsCapcom was never a balanced game and infact had a huge scandal with some button mashers placing well in tournaments.

But where GW2 fails, is that there “reaction” and active playing has a too small role in the gameplay due to unbalanced skills, mechanics and traits.

I don’t think GW2 would get 9:1 you could can counter build pick just about everything in GW2 because of your customization ability in GW2 I think 9:1 is a far stretch. If you are in a 6:4 matchup on a fighting game usually that is what you are stuck with you can’t change the character to 8:2.

Many current fighting games have health differences MvC3, SF IV, SxT. If characters don’t have health weight in a fighting game then they have damage differences. The Jab/light punch on 1 character will do more damage then another in many cases with different frame data. 3D games like tekken and virtua fighter don’t have health weights but it isn’t universal across the genre.

Most competitive tournaments don’t lock you into one character if we use that in GW2 it would be allowing you to customize your build on the fly and chose a different profession entirely. If GW2 was a 1v1 focused game allowing the same customization I think you would see that it is balanced because you could counter pick your builds. If I was fighting a 1v1 vs a necro and can put on hoelbrak runes on the fly, take all my condition management traits say 6 water 6 arcana then I give myself a much greater chance in that fight. If the next fight was a thief direct damage thief then I would pull 2-4 points from water place them in Air for more damage since conditions aren’t as much of a threat and change to strength runes.

Damage is balanced around:
Tell
Range
Tracking
Aftercast

The more a move is damaging, the more is reactable and punishable.

That is why you don t see stealth in fighting games, also your evasion is limited.
In gw2 you never pay for mistakes with some professions.

What they did last patch was the right thing.
Reduce profession effectiveness to push rune and sigils.
They should do the same reducing trait effectiveness in favor of skills, and then balance skills.

In really few games you have almost forced builds and party comp, like this.

balance IS NOT subjective.
pre-nerf “Automated Response” for example which made an engie completely immune to conditions when they hit 25% hp was not subjectively OP. it meant the engie was practically unkillable for condition builds.

i’m not a fan of these thread that attempt to defend the dire state of balance by claiming that balance cannot be achieved,
i’m not sure how many MMOs you’ve played, but i’ve played plenty (including the first GW) which have had pretty great balance.
i’ll just add that of all of the MMOs i’ve played GW2 is both the least balanced and least updated of them all.

That’s also why the complexity space of fighting games is very low compared to even the smallest MMO though, Byron. MMOs are a wholly different beast to balance. Consider the billions and billions of combinations of:

• Player
• Class
• Trait for each individual trait slot
• Gear bonuses
• Runes
• Sigils
• Weapons
• (do the above for every member in the team, multiply it)
• Circumstances
• Timing
• Initiative
• Existent cooldown-state.
• Existent condition- and boon-sate.
• Map-state
• Map-location
• (For WvW) Team-size.
• (For WvW) Momentum
• (For WvW) Siege context and state (winning isn’t always the most desirable outcome of each encounter)

It’s quite surprising that any MMO is as balanced as they are. But there’s an important thing about RPG-based games: they don’t want to be balanced. The whole underlying concept of classes is to specialize yourself (and now the important part) so that there are situations which favour you and situations which put you at a disadvantage.

Compare very basic underlying RPG concepts like an archetypical mage, a class built around the idea of killing target via supreme potential at range and in a frontloaded manner, but faltering if pressured in physical combat. In either situation the mage is not in a balanced state, versus a melee attacker most RPGs put them in such a tight spot that they usually need party members to get them out of the muck.

The way MMORPGs get around this inherent issue is by – as above – exploding the combination-space to the point where most discussions about balance no longer make sense. Each individual unbalanced situation is so tiny, and even large imbalances affect such a tiny slice of the total cake, balance can be done by “feel” and “identity” instead of any actual balance discussion.

Leading to the whole point of the thread. “Feel” of the class, and perceived lack of identity or meaning in a fight, are RPG-concepts of balance. They’re highly subjective to class and perspective of someone using the class, not to some underlying mathematical model.

Liewec.2896:

balance IS NOT subjective.
pre-nerf “Automated Response” for example which made an engie completely immune to conditions when they hit 25% hp was not subjectively OP. it meant the engie was practically unkillable for condition builds.

i’m not a fan of these thread that attempt to defend the dire state of balance by claiming that balance cannot be achieved,
i’m not sure how many MMOs you’ve played, but i’ve played plenty (including the first GW) which have had pretty great balance.
i’ll just add that of all of the MMOs i’ve played GW2 is both the least balanced and least updated of them all.

Like Carighan is pointing out in your “unbalanced situation” a direct damage (insert class) makes AR useless and far from as effective.

Let’s say we use a Elementalist running bolt to the heart getting the +20% damage on opponent at 33% health. He wants the engineer to reach 33% health in that “unbalanced situation”. In that situation specifically the 33% threshold or anything below favors the direct damage Elementalist not the engineer.

I look at that situation in favor of the elementalist. If I was on a condition necro then I would think otherwise. That is why it is subjective because for you AR is unbalanced because you are countered on your condition build. Some other person that knows only direct damage/burst is hardly impacted by AR therefore sees no problem with it’s impact on his fight with a engineer. So should it then be considered OP by your situation or his?

Achieving balance by community standards means the majority agrees the game is balanced(it should be 100% agreement). That isn’t going to happen even in the games you played previously if you named them I am sure someone would disagree that perfect balanced was achieved.

Lord Byron,
I think you might be confusing Subjective vs Objective and Quantitative vs. Qualitative.

Something like a Matchup Chart or a Tier Ranking is Subjective Quantitative data.

Sure, there’s numbers involved, but the conclusions are ultimately reached by pooling an aggregate of people’s experiences creating a common consensus. If it were Objective, conclusions would be reached solely from measurements outside of playing matches with no room for debate or interpretation.

Good posts and discussion of the topic everyone, hopefully Arenanet takes notice of this thread when making the next balance patch.

Carighan.6758:

That’s also why the complexity space of fighting games is very low compared to even the smallest MMO though, Byron. MMOs are a wholly different beast to balance. Consider the billions and billions of combinations of:

• Player
• Class
• Trait for each individual trait slot
• Gear bonuses
• Runes
• Sigils
• Weapons
• (do the above for every member in the team, multiply it)
• Circumstances
• Timing
• Initiative
• Existent cooldown-state.
• Existent condition- and boon-sate.
• Map-state
• Map-location
• (For WvW) Team-size.
• (For WvW) Momentum
• (For WvW) Siege context and state (winning isn’t always the most desirable outcome of each encounter)

It’s quite surprising that any MMO is as balanced as they are.

No its surprising the game is so clearly unbalanced.
They broken any possible balance rule and they seems to try changing numbers empyrically rather than with logic and foresight.
Also with a dash of bias towards some profession (healing signet nerfed 8% ele signet nerfed 50% to tell one).

Also is not about variables.
Is about controlling variables.

When you have a solid subset of balancing rules you may add any number of skills/traits and utilities and everything will still be balanced.

If you instead work on every single skill/trait (or even worse introduce LORE in balancing) without any general rule you end up like GW2.

Build the skills around the rules and you have a balanced game.

If variables are too many just reduce their weigth…example reduce trait impact to a 5% and push sigils and runes.

What is sad is GW2 has a base of skill similar to make a set of balancing rules possible.

The problem is two-fold:

- There’s no autobalance measures. So they keep changing skills which only results in new gimmicky builds appearing every time. Then you have people copying those, and players end up again having to choose between actually playing the game for fun, or abusing the loopholes in balance for wins, and too many people choose the second. New loopholes will keep appearing no matter how many changes are made as long as there’s no autobalance meaures. You don’t stop people from exploting CC spam by doing things like reducing CC durations. With that you only make other builds that use less of those CCs useless. You stop people from exploiting CC spam by adding a system that does things like kicking in when too many CCs are spammed by too many creatures on a single creature, giving them accumulative resistance against CCs after a certain number of CCs and a short invulnerability and a free stun break after too many.
Then people stop going for maximums and balance loopholes, and try to find equilibrium and efficiency, as builds that aim for maximums and exploit loopholes would be a waste of skills and stats that would hit the autobalance walls.

- There’s no more modes. Only conquest. Conquest favors a horribly coward style of gameplay, in which victory is not determined by skill, but again by exploiting loopholes in balance to spam conditions, AoEs and survivability. It’s horrible how often players can win by just blindly running around in circles in a point like a headless chicken aimlessly spamming crap around. Maps do have quirks and unique mechanics, but they are clearly not enough. We need modes with more different mechanics for victory, from deathmatch to having to perform tasks in different parts of the map while fighting off enemies.

Get more game modes and autobalance measures. Then you have a good starting point for balance.

MithranArkanere.8957:

- There’s no more modes. Only conquest. Conquest favors a horribly coward style of gameplay, in which victory is not determined by skill, but again by exploiting loopholes in balance to spam conditions, AoEs and survivability. It’s horrible how often players can win by just blindly running around in circles in a point like a headless chicken aimlessly spamming crap around. Maps do have quirks and unique mechanics, but they are clearly not enough. We need modes with more different mechanics for victory, from deathmatch to having to perform tasks in different parts of the map while fighting off enemies.

Get more game modes and autobalance measures. Then you have a good starting point for balance.

If I may:

Conquest does allow for some unfortunate builds like turret bunker. But other modes would not necessarily be better. For example, take p/d thief and pu mesmer, two of the most hated WvW roamers. You won’t find them ruining tPvP.

Take the 10v10 and larger annihilation matches arranged by guilds in the obsidian sanctum, or by the windmill in the borderlands. There’s a lot more aoe (mostly hammer warriors) flying around than in PvP.

There are some unfortunate low-risk builds at the top right now, but that’s not the fault of conquest. Hammer warrior is hammer warrior, whether on a node or in a zerg. Guardian is just as important in deathmatch as in conquest. Conditions are kind of good on side points. There is some AoE spam, mostly hambow warriors, thief shortbow, and some elementalists.

My point is this: conquest encourages teamfighting, mobility, and 1v1/1v2/2v2 situations. Most other modes would only give you one or two of those scenarios (for example, annihilation is pure teamfighting, CTF is mostly mobility with some teamfighting, dueling/arenas is mobility and 1v1/2v2). It’s very unlikely that team deathmatch would magically make cheesy builds disappear. I think we do need 2v2 or 3v3 arenas because GW2 combat excels at that scale, but there’s nothing that says it would reward better or even different builds than conquest does.

MithranArkanere.8957:

There’s no more modes. Only conquest.

I agree, partially.

I think on top of more modes, we need more map gimmicks (yes, I’m aware Skyhammer is unpopular, but it’s change to the general pace of PvP can be helpful).

And most importantly, players should be unable to pick a specific game mode or map. Your build has to be able to handle CTF, Domination, KotH, everything. And being around the tiny laser platform or whatever other map gimmick the other maps feature.

The point is, you couldn’t optimize your build for say, flat-ground 1v1 combat. You have no clue whether maps feature it will come up.

However, having said that, sure there’s other modes. WvW and PvE and their subtypes, for example.

oZii.2864:

Like Carighan is pointing out in your “unbalanced situation” a direct damage (insert class) makes AR useless and far from as effective.

you can try to say that because a direct damage dealer isn’t effected by AR that it is somehow balanced,
but a trait (that was only a major, so very easy to pick up) which completely countered half of the builds in the game with no input required is OP no matter which way you look at it.

also in the pvp scene there are very few direct damage zerker builds currently,
the meta has been condi bunkers for awhile now.
direct damage glass cannons just die.
(hence why there was alot of noise about AR being OP, leading to its nerf)

Liewec.2896:

but a trait (that was only a major, so very easy to pick up) which completely countered half of the builds in the game with no input required is OP no matter which way you look at it.

If it counters exactly half, how is it OP? Or, why isn’t it underpowered if it’s useless against half the builds?
(I think you meant to use a different word here :P )

I view game “balance” as primarily 2 things:

Competitive Balance – How something compares with a competitor. If one class equal with another then they are balanced, but that’s no fun is it? For this reason classes are given different roles and In order for the classes to be properly balanced, each class needs to be equally balanced based on the importance of their roles, but this is something I’ve rarely seen done correctly and is an obvious issue in this game.

Intended Design – If something is in balance with the content as originally intended. Take the issue of power creep that often happens when balancing, where everyone keeps being brought up in power to a point where they are no longer in balance with the power level of monsters. The classes may have been brought into balance with one another, but they are now out of balance when compared to the intended difficulty of content.

Take also into consideration about how each class should be able to fill each role and with the same effectiveness or on pare with each other. Not the case at all within gw2, even though it was promised to us that it would be just that.

The Primary.6371:

Take also into consideration about how each class should be able to fill each role and with the same effectiveness or on pare with each other. Not the case at all within gw2, even though it was promised to us that it would be just that.

Oh interesting, where was that promised again? Because I remember that they promised that you could play however you want.

It got player-interpreted to what you said, which is curious because having everyone be able to do everything is exactly what you don’t want to do in a class-/spec-based RPG.

Carighan.6758:

The Primary.6371:

Take also into consideration about how each class should be able to fill each role and with the same effectiveness or on pare with each other. Not the case at all within gw2, even though it was promised to us that it would be just that.

Oh interesting, where was that promised again? Because I remember that they promised that you could play however you want.

It got player-interpreted to what you said, which is curious because having everyone be able to do everything is exactly what you don’t want to do in a class-/spec-based RPG.

Seems anet interpreted it the same way aswell considering how the trinity was thrown out the window and how it was typed that ever class could fill every role for e.g. dungeons or pvp teams.

By the way, I won’t bother trying to provide proof since it’s an utterly pointless argument that your trying to forward.

The Primary.6371:

Seems anet interpreted it the same way aswell considering how the trinity was thrown out the window and how it was typed that ever class could fill every role for e.g. dungeons or pvp teams.

Ok, now we’re confusing things.

ANet promised that due to a lack of trinity and the sheer amount of different weapons and abilities on classes, you’re never excluded from something on principle.

An example of this issue is that as raids get better in WoW, you want less and less healers. Back in the days when respeccing was a problem in regards to new gear, this was problematic for say, your Disc Priest. You would just tell them to go Shadow, but that’s nothing they can do on a whim.
Another example was vanilla raiding, you needed one Retridin for BoK. But only one, as the second would have nothing to do, and the damager of Retribution was negligible.

A more modern example is that a second tank in a dungeon is generally not useful. They spec DPS instead, but at least WoW made it easy to do that nowadays.

GW2 does not have this issue.
Every class is able to fill “every” role, by virtue of the roles not existing. We’re all subtypes of DPS, and our classes have a slight niche but never a functional difference. Thieves aren’t useless in PvE, like they were in DAoC. Healers … don’t exist. Warriors can do ranged damage.

What they didn’t mean is that you can just randomly equip some gear and do maximum damage in PvE, or that you can spec whatever you want and expect to be efficient at both WvW, sPvP and PvE, with the very same spec and against all targets.

So, yes, everyone can fill every “role”.
It’s still your obligation as a player to be good at it and want to be good at it, or groups are still going to remove you.

But unlike games such as WoW, you’re not a liability and unwanted even when properly set up. And that’s what the GW2 devs were on about in that dev talk, how in earlier MMOs the class-roles forced a viability onto you which could later in your char’s life negatively impact your ability to play with friends or guildies, and there’s little you can do about it.

To quote some guy’s sig: “Dear Anet, please nerf Rock. Paper is fine. Sincerely, Scissors.”

Bump /15 rock, paper, scissors.

Zomaarwat.3912:

To quote some guy’s sig: “Dear Anet, please nerf Rock. Paper is fine. Sincerely, Scissors.”

Did someone summon me?

Carighan.6758:

The Primary.6371:

Seems anet interpreted it the same way aswell considering how the trinity was thrown out the window and how it was typed that ever class could fill every role for e.g. dungeons or pvp teams.

Ok, now we’re confusing things.

ANet promised that due to a lack of trinity and the sheer amount of different weapons and abilities on classes, you’re never excluded from something on principle.

An example of this issue is that as raids get better in WoW, you want less and less healers. Back in the days when respeccing was a problem in regards to new gear, this was problematic for say, your Disc Priest. You would just tell them to go Shadow, but that’s nothing they can do on a whim.
Another example was vanilla raiding, you needed one Retridin for BoK. But only one, as the second would have nothing to do, and the damager of Retribution was negligible.

A more modern example is that a second tank in a dungeon is generally not useful. They spec DPS instead, but at least WoW made it easy to do that nowadays.

GW2 does not have this issue.
Every class is able to fill “every” role, by virtue of the roles not existing. We’re all subtypes of DPS, and our classes have a slight niche but never a functional difference. Thieves aren’t useless in PvE, like they were in DAoC. Healers … don’t exist. Warriors can do ranged damage.

What they didn’t mean is that you can just randomly equip some gear and do maximum damage in PvE, or that you can spec whatever you want and expect to be efficient at both WvW, sPvP and PvE, with the very same spec and against all targets.

So, yes, everyone can fill every “role”.
It’s still your obligation as a player to be good at it and want to be good at it, or groups are still going to remove you.

But unlike games such as WoW, you’re not a liability and unwanted even when properly set up. And that’s what the GW2 devs were on about in that dev talk, how in earlier MMOs the class-roles forced a viability onto you which could later in your char’s life negatively impact your ability to play with friends or guildies, and there’s little you can do about it.

So a necro can fill the spot of team support for pvp or support within pve better than a staff ele or guardian when set up in that manner. Or a dps thief can survive just as well while doing amazing dps just like warrior can verse a boss that has coding that makes it go for the lowest toughness vs the party of players.

Seems like you are confused, sure a class can do it e.g. dps of certain types e.g. ranged or melee. In the reality of interpretation, it depends how well a class can do it for them to be considered worth it. Along with how much adaptability/utility they can bring while filling that role.

If they can fill more than one role, more of a plus e.g. sleight of hand thief can boon steal, dps, cleave dps, save allies, mobility, doesn’t need a baby sitter and more over a condition necro which can only corrupt boons, aoe condition, somewhat cc chain until enemy has condi clear or immunity to cc and degen enemy until they use condition clear. This is just one example from various other builds and even classes themselves e.g. ranger.

If the spec for the class to fill a much needed role is not worth it over another class that can do it better. That class will never be brought along for a tournament run or will be kicked by the majority of the party within a dungeon.

Concluding, you can try to go on “technicalities” as much as you like. But these issue all stem from anets lack of ability to correctly balance their game for every class within every arch type that gw2 has. If every class is not on equal par with each other, then why should A be taken over B.

That’s a tricky subject. Even a 10y standing juggernaut with a very active dev team like WoW (daily twitter / forum interaction, directly answering player questions, giving statistics) cannot balance classes to a community-accepted degree.

From that + all past MMOs, we can so far generalize that classes in MMOs cannot be balanced.
Otherwise it stands to reason that someone would have managed or at least written about how to do it, yet no one has. Not even close.

So sure, maybe classes can actually be balanced. But if that is the case, it won’t happen “now” (in the meta sense). Maybe we’re missing tech. Or maybe it’s more likely that if we pick a genre specifically not about being balanced – like, say, RPGs :P – then we won’t see balance.

However, once that is established, it remains to define how balanced is “balanced enough”. If we cannot achieve proper balance, and for now we can assume that it’s impossible, then we need to define a margin of “ok”.

Only problem is, WoW shows admirably well that no matter how small the imbalance, players will always kick out the “rubbish” class. It doesn’t actually matter whether it’ll make a difference or not.
And that is sort-of where GW2 is right now, too. The loss of efficiency from including a non-necro class (see below for those) in your dungeon team is actually negligible, comparing the right kind of imbalance. Say, DAoC. And DAoC is the closest MMO to GW2 in the past, so the comparison seems apt. Why do players make such a big fuss about such a small imbalance? Good question, I suspect the rather good balance of WoW which everyone is used to plays a major part in it, though.

I often feel like the vocal minority of GW2 tends to blow things way out of proportions. But then, that’s the MO for every MMO’s vocal community. The game is apparently always close to dying, the devs don’t get their own game, play personal favourites and lack the skills to handle it.
Given that, I have yet to see an indication that the accusations have any merit in GW2. 5-zerker-any-class do dungeons in speed runs perfectly fine. Well, coming back to that necro thing…

Necros… are in a bad spot, PvE wise. But this is due to their class speciality in regards to group support, boon/condition control. Which is about never useful in PvE, as mobs die too fast or don’t rely on these enough.

I know what is not balanced and what is underpowered about my class, mainly because i’ve been play pvp for so long and being testing stuff out and also discuss stuff with known good players.

these players mostly will be less biased, because they play a lot of classes, they played for a long time, and they are less likely to be owned by one class and even they do they will know why.

Me myself, i main warrior, i’m totally aware what is OP and should be nerfed and what should be buffed, in order to improve the class as a whole in diversity, etc. (like how im totally for longbow 5 to have animation or healing signet being completely passive is bad design)

while most people only see one side of a class and then they think this is the whole class/ or they will look at every aspect of one class and think they can have them all in one single build or they can’t see the OP side of their own classes and only see it’s flaws, all of these end up with extremely biased arguments.

like when i’m trying to improve warrior in ways other then hambow, people will be like yea, but hambow so strong, so that means warrior is strong too, so warrior does not deserve improvement even tho other specs sucks, because hambow is strong ( that logic), they can stun and run real fast and be immune to everything endlessly, and like no other classes have immunity at all. ill be like, w/e.

also if you look at the interview of EU ToL winner, they laugh at how people in NA forum QQ about hambow and say that hambow is sure is good when killing noobs.
and no body should lose to hambow if played at proper level
(this is all quoted, personally i have no opinion around hambow, since the last patch where they nerfed it, because i did not play gw2 much.)

For me, I usually see balance as everyone constantly crying about everyone else.

Ok, I should explain that. :P

I feel RPG-classes balance best when they feel like your class is truly unique. A Warrior being a fierce fighter, someone who is difficult to stop or deter, but who has simplicity of mechanics on their weak side, lacking the “flourish” or “finesse” of the other classes.
To that end, I don’t mind Warriors having easy access to Stability or very high overall damage and healing. That actually goes really well with what I think they should be able.

Only… IMO, that ought to be it. I’d genuinely make a Warrior’s utility all Stability / Healing / Damage. Most of it actually damage. This gives them higher than average damage, but also robs them of actual utility.

As another example, a Mesmer IMO is about confusing and misdirecting enemies. Clones, illusions, reflections, these are what a Mesmer conceptually would be good at.
Consequently, I’m not sure I’d even see the class (I’m a main mesmer :P) as someone who has any significant damage output on their own.
Abilities such as Feedback, a beefed-up version of Mimic, an ability to make a target hit another target (of their team!), enemy attacks stacking more and more confusion, all these are things I’d see a Mesmer being good at. Making the enemy heal the Mesmer instead of themselves! But their own healing and damage is very very very weak, bordering on ignorable.

Now, this sounds mighty unbalanced, and it is. On purpose. The design goal I have in regards to classes in video games is that classes should be fully incomparable. There should be no common mechanic upon which to really judge classes. They’re “too different”.

As a result of that, each class excels at a handful of things. They’re truly strong in those, and other classes struggle to even provide that at all (they can’t, really). But, in turn they also have glaring flaws and weaknesses, easily exploited, and requiring the presence of other classes to patch those gaps.

TF2’s class balance exemplifies this to a degree ,at least the vanilla one. Each class is highly focused, superb at one thing while terrible at everything else. Only I wouldn’t use one thing, but rather a handful of.

Would it be balanced in any numerical statistic? Hell no, that’d be really bad for it if it were. But you’d also fully “the best” in what you do, and not even competing in what the others do.

Carighan.6758:

That’s a tricky subject. Even a 10y standing juggernaut with a very active dev team like WoW (daily twitter / forum interaction, directly answering player questions, giving statistics) cannot balance classes to a community-accepted degree.

From that + all past MMOs, we can so far generalize that classes in MMOs cannot be balanced.
Otherwise it stands to reason that someone would have managed or at least written about how to do it, yet no one has. Not even close.

So sure, maybe classes can actually be balanced. But if that is the case, it won’t happen “now” (in the meta sense). Maybe we’re missing tech. Or maybe it’s more likely that if we pick a genre specifically not about being balanced – like, say, RPGs :P – then we won’t see balance.

However, once that is established, it remains to define how balanced is “balanced enough”. If we cannot achieve proper balance, and for now we can assume that it’s impossible, then we need to define a margin of “ok”.

Only problem is, WoW shows admirably well that no matter how small the imbalance, players will always kick out the “rubbish” class. It doesn’t actually matter whether it’ll make a difference or not.
And that is sort-of where GW2 is right now, too. The loss of efficiency from including a non-necro class (see below for those) in your dungeon team is actually negligible, comparing the right kind of imbalance. Say, DAoC. And DAoC is the closest MMO to GW2 in the past, so the comparison seems apt. Why do players make such a big fuss about such a small imbalance? Good question, I suspect the rather good balance of WoW which everyone is used to plays a major part in it, though.

I often feel like the vocal minority of GW2 tends to blow things way out of proportions. But then, that’s the MO for every MMO’s vocal community. The game is apparently always close to dying, the devs don’t get their own game, play personal favourites and lack the skills to handle it.
Given that, I have yet to see an indication that the accusations have any merit in GW2. 5-zerker-any-class do dungeons in speed runs perfectly fine. Well, coming back to that necro thing…

Necros… are in a bad spot, PvE wise. But this is due to their class speciality in regards to group support, boon/condition control. Which is about never useful in PvE, as mobs die too fast or don’t rely on these enough.

Anet set out to have a game unique to the rest, dropped an unfinished product and poorly prepared for it in multiple aspects. Then they balanced gw2 around it’s pvp in general, one arch type of the game that only has one pvp mode. Conquest, dumbed down version of alliance battles from gw1 that doesn’t take much to actually win within it.

Failed horribly when trying to bring gw2 into the e-sport picture because of class imbalance or the best one “singular pvp mode with pathetic observation tool”.

When you tried to tear down the necro example you actually forgot that it was a scenario. One of many that can easily display ineffectiveness that should not exist. Why bother to bring a necro when you can speed run entire dungeons with classes that can do a better job (we all know which classes do the better job too). This was already typed by the way, but you still seem confused.

Anyways, pve dungeons are pretty much full of the same brainless grinding that anet promised would not be in gw2. So many promises broken that I care not to elaborate upon because you are simply trying to showcase that balance is impossible within gw2.

If it is impossible, whose fault is it?

ricky.2679:

Bunker Meta is here and it’s strong. Conditions or Power damage it doesn’t even matter they still do good damage. Most players are a bunker of some sort because there is no monks. This is why you should of copied your own Guildwars 1 instead of WoW or LoL, Arenanet.

Bunker meta can stick it! Knock ’em off the point!

This power engi with rifle/flamethrower says hello.

Complexity in pvp is good but it also makes it more difficult to balance. But hey “Variety is the spice of life”. I don’t think anyone enjoys a game of rock paper scissors anyway lol. Balance is a general concept to me that means that all professions have the same capabilities of dps, tank, healing and avoidance. To be honest that sounds pretty boring to me.

Thank you Arenanet for this game where I can learn to play different builds that can counter each other. Just like Guildwars 1 except maybe not as complex which might be good thing :P. #ESPORTS can suck it because Guildwars 2 is fun

Personally, I feel a large portion of the problem is that it feels to me that Anet focuses balance around PvP in an effort to promote Esports in a manner that feels forced upon the community. As I see it, they should have offered a multifaceted PvP aspect, and allow Esports to develop organically instead of pushing it on the player base.

And yet lots of samples of subjective information = objective information.

“And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair. Often in fighting games, one character will have something so good it’s unfair. Fine, let him have that. As time goes on, it will be discovered that other characters have even more powerful and unfair tactics.”

Wow. Thanks for the read.

Well atm all classes are complaining about each other so Anet must be doing something right.

Overpowered is like an apple to an orange at making apple juice. But should the orange care when it can make orange juice? What about a rock who makes no juice at all? But it can make an apple or an orange into juice! What was I talking about, Im thirsty now? :p Oh yea, if we’re scoring for apple juice than the apple is overpowered, but if we are scoring for juice in general then they all have something to offer.

There is a minor premise that needs to be looked at closer. That is, not all classes are overpowered. Ranger is way behind the rest.

ricky.2679:

Everybody plays for or against a profession and thinks it is Overpowered. Well I am simply going to say that is your opinion. There is no balance when everything is “overpowered”.

Arenanet will not listen to your complaints obviously biased against certain professions. Because all you want is for them to be nerfed and your own profession buffed. I will link “Playing to win” by Sirlin now.

Play to win, don’t be a Scrub

Sure, “balance” is subjective, but the extreme lack of developer effort to improve professions is not subjective. Professions and combat are the most important aspect of this game, yet they receive the least amount of attention despite needing the most. Let’s talk about “balance” being subjective later after we get a real investment on anets part.

vincecontix.1264:

Well atm all classes are complaining about each other so Anet must be doing something right.

Doing next to nothing is definitely not “doing something right”.

The primary reasons and root causes of complaints are because little has changed to improve and develop professions outside of gear, and certain “red flag” combat issues have not been addressed. The foundation of professions and combat made by anet are decent, but they have a lot more construction work to do.