Guild Wars 2

At the moment ArenaNet are balancing very random, they don’t really know where they want their classes to be. They don’t have a “spot” where they feel it’s just right, where they want all classes to be.

When ArenaNet find that spot, they can balance all classes to that spot and it will all be good.

Here’s an example of how it can look. I will measure balance in power and skill.

I———1———2———3———4I

So if you look at this. You want all classes to be able to perform up to 4, if a class can’t perform up to that skill-level, then that class will need a buff. If it’s under 4 in skill-level that is. If a class is above 4 in skill-level, that class will need a nerf.

The final goal is to get the skill-level of all classes to 4. You can’t perform better than 4 even how much you try.
A less experienced player would perform 1.
A medium experienced player would perform 2.
A highly experienced player would perform 3.
A very experienced player would perform 4.

You think it is easy like that?
How you would determinate who is a very experienced player, and how you would make those types of players test before releasing the update?

For example, lets balance the power of a class, that “4” spot would be PvP, PvE or WvW, if PvE it would be open world or dungeon, if PvP it would be sPvP or tPvP, if WvW it would be roaming, zerg?

The theory of balance is much easier than actually balance something, it is a matter of trial and error most of times.

I have never ever played or seen a MMO where people were satisfied with class ballance. It’s a battle with Windmills from start onwards.

The more you try to ballance them they more messed up it gets in the end.

As long as there is a limit to how a class can perform and all the 8 classes has the same limit. It is balanced. If all classes can perform a maximum of 4, then it’s all good. Of course it’s not easy to get to that spot, but it is possible.

Belzebu.3912:

You think it is easy like that?
How you would determinate who is a very experienced player, and how you would make those types of players test before releasing the update?

For example, lets balance the power of a class, that “4” spot would be PvP, PvE or WvW, if PvE it would be open world or dungeon, if PvP it would be sPvP or tPvP, if WvW it would be roaming, zerg?

The theory of balance is much easier than actually balance something, it is a matter of trial and error most of times.

That’s why you make SPvP skills specific to PvP and less PvEish. WvW is just a roaming zerg hell, no point in balancing that to the extent of what SPvP needs.

zMajc.4659:

I have never ever played or seen a MMO where people were satisfied with class ballance. It’s a battle with Windmills from start onwards.

The more you try to ballance them they more messed up it gets in the end.

Bloodline champions (pvp only game) was incredibly balanced. Wonderful game. Unfortunately it was pvp only and didn’t get much advertisement as it was done by an Indy group under FunCom, but the pvp in it was amazing! It still exists but the population is too small.

ronpierce.2760:

zMajc.4659:

I have never ever played or seen a MMO where people were satisfied with class ballance. It’s a battle with Windmills from start onwards.

The more you try to ballance them they more messed up it gets in the end.

Bloodline champions (pvp only game) was incredibly balanced. Wonderful game. Unfortunately it was pvp only and didn’t get much advertisement as it was done by an Indy group under FunCom, but the pvp in it was amazing! It still exists but the population is too small.

That game is made by some students in Sweden. It’s a good and balanced game, i agree.

Right now the biggest issue is not the balance of each professions. Its the lack of gameplay diversity.

Right now only Direct Damage is good in the game. Condition interfere with each other making that less powerful in a group, and the best support come from normal utility and not from build. In a game where Direct Damage is the power, its normal that the best Direct Damager, AKA the Warrior, is king. And the other profession that bring the best support skill (without using any trait or stats ) AKA Elementalist, Mesmer and Guardian, form the most popular and powerful profession. By making Condition Damage not interfere with each other profession like Necromancer and Engineer will become better profession in PvE. By making the stealth usefull against Mobs, the Thief will get more spot in dungeon. Leaving only the Ranger with some difficulty. But that’s another story.

It cracks me up when people make claims like:

Zoid.2568:

At the moment ArenaNet are balancing very random, they don’t really know where they want their classes to be. They don’t have a “spot” where they feel it’s just right, where they want all classes to be.

And name a thread “How to balance classes”.

How can anyone claim to know more than the people making the game themselves? It is true that there are balance issues that we can see for ourselves, but I hardly think anyone outside of the ones working on the problems has any real insight on how to fix things.

Thaddeus.4891:

Right now the biggest issue is not the balance of each professions. Its the lack of gameplay diversity.

Right now only Direct Damage is good in the game. Condition interfere with each other making that less powerful in a group, and the best support come from normal utility and not from build. In a game where Direct Damage is the power, its normal that the best Direct Damager, AKA the Warrior, is king. And the other profession that bring the best support skill (without using any trait or stats ) AKA Elementalist, Mesmer and Guardian, form the most popular and powerful profession. By making Condition Damage not interfere with each other profession like Necromancer and Engineer will become better profession in PvE. By making the stealth usefull against Mobs, the Thief will get more spot in dungeon. Leaving only the Ranger with some difficulty. But that’s another story.

This is true. Power scale best of all the stats.
Mob AI need to be changed etc.

Will not be done in the near future though.

If I may, the balance issue in GW2 is a design issue. It was built too sloppy to even become balanced properly. Couple examples:
- Some classes are built to sustain a fight, others are build to out last and dwindle down. This can never be balanced. Each class needs to be built similarly with an equal chance to survive burst and survive in a long fight. This difference is okay between ROLES (support versus glass versus soldiers) but not class designs.
- there are too many passive benefits that aren’t controlled. Traits that give random procs on “events” make the game unpredictable.
- Similarly there are too many internal cool downs across the board. There is too much to try to remember before it turns to mush and becomes “random events” within a fight.
- there are too many instant attacks. Instant attacks should be brought back a bit in the first place, and additionally there should be a global cool down of at least .5 seconds to prevent unexpected unavoidable and unpredictable bursts or chains of events.
- the game is too evade heavy and prominent. Classes with the best access to avoid damage entirely innately do better than those that simply try to reduce damage taken or out heal it. Weapon evades need to go away, vigor needs to be a 50% increase versus 100%. Of course this would require some rebalancing, I’m just saying why it can’t currently balanced.
- there’s too much clutter.
- burst is too high and glass dies too fast. Bunkers do no damage and can survive practically forever. The defenses and damage output should be closER together, so no fights last forever, and fights never end in under 4 seconds.
- there’s too much AI spawning.
- too much damage on many weapons are placed on the auto attack versus the abilities (Ie warriors axe/axe. There’s no reason axe 2 shouldn’t be hitting substantially harder than auto attacks.)
- resource systems aren’t consistent. You can’t balance thieves with other classes because 7 classes are cool down based, 1 class is entirely resource based. You can get close but these will never feel balanced to anyone.

Stuff like that. Too many inconsistencies, too sloppy. This game will never be balanced, though they may get a “good enough” pseudo balance.

ronpierce.2760:

If I may, the balance issue in GW2 is a design issue. It was built too sloppy to even become balanced properly. Couple examples:
- Some classes are built to sustain a fight, others are build to out last and dwindle down. This can never be balanced. Each class needs to be built similarly with an equal chance to survive burst and survive in a long fight. This difference is okay between ROLES (support versus glass versus soldiers) but not class designs.
- there are too many passive benefits that aren’t controlled. Traits that give random procs on “events” make the game unpredictable.
- Similarly there are too many internal cool downs across the board. There is too much to try to remember before it turns to mush and becomes “random events” within a fight.
- there are too many instant attacks. Instant attacks should be brought back a bit in the first place, and additionally there should be a global cool down of at least .5 seconds to prevent unexpected unavoidable and unpredictable bursts or chains of events.
- the game is too evade heavy and prominent. Classes with the best access to avoid damage entirely innately do better than those that simply try to reduce damage taken or out heal it. Weapon evades need to go away, vigor needs to be a 50% increase versus 100%. Of course this would require some rebalancing, I’m just saying why it can’t currently balanced.
- there’s too much clutter.
- burst is too high and glass dies too fast. Bunkers do no damage and can survive practically forever. The defenses and damage output should be closER together, so no fights last forever, and fights never end in under 4 seconds.
- there’s too much AI spawning.
- too much damage on many weapons are placed on the auto attack versus the abilities (Ie warriors axe/axe. There’s no reason axe 2 shouldn’t be hitting substantially harder than auto attacks.)
- resource systems aren’t consistent. You can’t balance thieves with other classes because 7 classes are cool down based, 1 class is entirely resource based. You can get close but these will never feel balanced to anyone.

Stuff like that. Too many inconsistencies, too sloppy. This game will never be balanced, though they may get an"good enough" pseudo balance.

Very accurate post.

The only thing I feel like you are wrong is, “Classes with the best access to avoid damage entirely innately do better than those that simply try to reduce damage taken or out heal it.”

I know what you are getting at with classes running high evasion (thief/ranger), high damage immunity/blocks (engi in particular). However, Warriors being one of the biggest ones, manage to survive through almost sheer healing. Dodging is almost not a necessity for warriors.

Either way, I agree. A lot of variables weren’t taken into consideration when class design first took place in GW2. The unpredictable nature traits, sigils and runes were also a poor choice. One of the biggest issues I’m seeing is a failure to apply strengths with weakness. High damage should be high risk. But its not the case. Conditions shouldn’t be as bursty as raw damage, that is why Necromancer has a high health pool. To survive the slow sustained damage that conditions should be. Condition removal to an excess or not at all.

I feel like the complaining went so far, intended weakness was removed or even intended strengths have been removed. A good example, Ele stripped of its mobility. Vigor up time on crit or on channel isn’t enough to survive. An example of stripped weakness is warrior going from little condi removal to near best.

honestly for me balance would be if all classes can be viable and useful in evry single game mode. i wouldnt mind war so much in wvw if my mesmer could be more than a veilbot for example. id complain a lot less if i had non ai aoe like i used to in wvw when glamour was viable. also a lot of the heavy nerfs done to ele and mesmers and rangers that are outdated by now as most of the classes received lots of buffs and changes.
for balance game modes have to be split like the used to be:
pve
spvp
wvw

Zoid.2568:

As long as there is a limit to how a class can perform and all the 8 classes has the same limit. It is balanced. If all classes can perform a maximum of 4, then it’s all good. Of course it’s not easy to get to that spot, but it is possible.

How do you know you know the limit?
Further, how is it far that while classes X and Y can be the same maximum level potential, stats show that for 99% of players, X is nearly thrice as strong as Y? Is that ok? Do you just tell everyone to “l2p”, and leave class X to constantly kill them?

Balance is subjective. It doesn’t matter where the classes are on some balance scale. If players think they’re balanced, then they’re balanced. If players think they’re imbalanced, then they are.

The game cannot ever be balanced. Here is the reason why:

THE DIFFERENT GAME MODES FAVOR DIFFERENT SPECS

Think about it this way. They would need to balance separately between:
1. Open world PvE
2. Fractals – low level
3. Fractals – high level
4. sPvP
5. Solo Queue
6. tPvP
7. WvW – Roaming
8. WvW – Small roaming groups
9. WvW – Zergs

Balance for PvP. It’s the only place where “Balance” matters.

WvW should be about logistcs and loot for the logistics.

PvE can always be balanced on the mob side.

Then we get the problem that A-net doesn’t understand any of their classes and nerfs something completely unrelated to problems.

Daishi.6027:

Balance for PvP. It’s the only place where “Balance” matters.

WvW should be about logistcs and loot for the logistics.

PvE can always be balanced on the mob side.

Then we get the problem that A-net doesn’t understand any of their classes and nerfs something completely unrelated to problems.

Self-righteous PvPers. If a class is too weak in PvP, WvW, or PvE people don’t play that class, unless the class is significantly more fun to play. As there’s is a minimal PvP community it should mean that PvP balance should matter the least because it affects the fewer number of players. Everyone cares about the balance of the mode of play. The developers neglecting WvW and PvE balance are going to dwindle away there player base faster than trying to make PvP a success. PvP balance won’t matter until they can make PvP more fun, conquest style is fail.

Although I agree that it will only make a significant difference if PvP was more fun to a greater population, in any game where you have PvP as a main part of a game (IMO) balance should be set their first and foremost.

Beyond my “self-righteousness” I believe this to be the case in any game even if I do not take part in the PvP itself. For example Diablo 3 and Warframe I would never support PvP balance for, since the PvP is more of an afterthought and balance would only harm the core part of the game.

GW2 on the other hand it’s silly. PvE is to easy for this to matter (oh noes the PvP righteousness) unless your doing fractals above like 30 what honest challange is their? World bosses? Maybe? But that’s mostly player logistics anyways. Dungeon runs are a joke and will still be fairly simple after the Zerker nerf. And viability is almost never a problem you can run whatever group you like, as long as your not a group of 3 rangers trying to do whack a mole events like in AC or trying to hold an area like in CoF p3. I did already say this in my previous post but atleast PvE can still be balanced on the side of mobs if something is really out of hand.

As for WvW I can sympathize but it was never designed to be balanced from the start. Not to say balance is unachivable or unimportant but the skill vs skill feels very watered down when you don’t have a pro coordinated guild, and the balance for WvW usually results in mindless builds to tag during zergs and never die 1v1.

People don’t leave classes that are underpowered in PvE unless they are trying to do the optimal which is redundant since almost any group with almost any combination can be victorious. Players do not leave WvW due to being underpowered or for example a one trick pony in zergs like a Mesmer being a veil bot. Let’s not forget that for either PvE or WvW getting a character ready is a investment, typically players won’t just throw that away. People however don’t play classes in PvP, their is little to no investment and it’s all about the class and how it’s balanced. If something is UP it will rarely be played.

Even IF this was not the case. IMO PvP should be ground zero for building balance and the rest of the game should be balanced around the numbers that come from there.

Daishi.6027:

Balance for PvP. It’s the only place where “Balance” matters.

WvW should be about logistcs and loot for the logistics.

PvE can always be balanced on the mob side.

Then we get the problem that A-net doesn’t understand any of their classes and nerfs something completely unrelated to problems.

Campaigning for PvP-focused balance is adding to the problem.
You’re talking about balancing for a – AFAIK – minority game mode which runs a combat system not supported by the game’s systems (smallscale PvP clashes with many of the inherent RPG mechanics of GW2).

But let’s be honest, you just want to pretend you’re superior by being good at sPvP, and hence need the balance to be focused around it because right now you can’t sell skill being a contributing factor to anyone.

I love how you try to make it into a personal superiority complex thing when clearly my opinions are based on a philosophy on how to balance, and is how I feel for majority of games specifically mmos.

But ok I’ll bite please tell me your perspective. What’s the point of balancing PvE more? What is there really to balance? Other than high end fractals and some classes being unviable I don’t see much. So please enlighten my ignorant mind.

Or is it about WvW? What needs to be done in terms of balance? At the end of the day is it not Zerg vs Zerg with skirmishes similar to pvp? Which ones are more worthwhile to balance? And if it’s ZvZ is it not numbers at the end of the day? How does class balance for into that?

Please humble this arrogant, ignorant, elitist. Teach me so I may learn of the importance of true balance.

Daishi.6027:

But ok I’ll bite please tell me your perspective. What’s the point of balancing PvE more?

Of top of my head:

• Comparative class power.
• Comparative class utility.
• Comparative class synergy power.
• Comparative class synergy utility.
• General power level (this ties into the difficulty, and this is the part you can balance via the PvE side).
• Class identity.
• Class design.

Most of these are shared with PvP btw, but the relative importance is way different. For example identity is nearly the most important one. If you don’t feel like you as a Guardian kitten something guardian-y to the party, there’s no point having guardians in PvE.
Intentionally overpowered skills with high class identity components are the cornerstone of many PvE balance designs, and are one of the points where it inherently collides with the ideal PvP balance, which doesn’t want overpowered skills, much less intentionally so-designed ones.

Daishi.6027:

Or is it about WvW? What needs to be done in terms of balance? At the end of the day is it not Zerg vs Zerg with skirmishes similar to pvp? Which ones are more worthwhile to balance? And if it’s ZvZ is it not numbers at the end of the day? How does class balance for into that?

WvW has a lot of mechanics of it’s own, but the key components are:

• Comparative class synergy power.
• Comparative class synergy utility.
• Class identity.
• Class area coverage (mobility is part of this, but around objectives the ability to bind enemies is much more important).
• Area denial synergy (this is not the ability to hold 4 people off a point, but being able to viably contribute to your 50 people holding 50 other people off a door), despite them using abilities to push through.
• Logistics support (Portal is the easy one here, but AE swiftness buffs are much bigger, charges, leaps, jumps, they all factor into this, as do projectile reflects and GTAE beneficial skills).

The problem is that even though many components are shared, the relative importance is completely different. sPvP is won and lost on smallscale encounters. 1v1~2v2 is the most common deciding factor, with 2v1 being the key encounter where imbalances show up (as 2 players should be able to overpower a single one, having numerical advantage).

In WvW, those 1v1 fights? They’re completely meaningless. Yes they might be imbalanced, but as long as logistical capability and “realm power at large” are ok, that’s completely negligible. What matters is how viable everyone feels as part of a team, group or zerg (depending on what you are doing right now).
Even if your side is stronger as a result of having 30 Elementalists compared to the enemy having 10, that doesn’t necessarily translate to Elementalists being all over too strong. The different amounts of synergy depending on context become hugely important in this.

A good example here is early game DAoC. Though hugely unbalanced, it showed how completely incomparable classes can balance out when put in a large enough mix of plenty enough classes, due to how each realm had a certain thing they did better, and those elements balancing out.
Yet it struggled badly with making each player of all but 1-2 classes feel like they’re making a significant impact. The rest were just “the meat”. Very important overall, as you need the numbers. But they never felt like they had an identity and hence never felt balanced. They always lacked an outstanding stool someone else had (e.g. Animist Shrooms) but without anything significant to make up for it.

This is very different from sPvP, where individual balance is aided by there being as few class differences as possible, and everything existing with a different coat of colour on each class.

And again very different from PvE, where unique identity doesn’t have to balance out as long as you got enough of it and total class power and synergy balances out.

So you balance PvE to make players feel better about their class. A lot of that is just a design issue and in the long run does nothing for the sake of “Balance” other than tipping the scale onto the players side with power creep. Which is redundant when you can face roll most of the content anyways. Unless your trying to make RPers feel awesome.

Although I wouldn’t be against having PvE(and WvW?) only class skills, in fact I’d find it great fun… but then it brings up my main point, “Balance” should not be a focus in PvE. If everyone is OP (which they already are) there is no point in balancing the numbers if adding more forced “class identity”.

I do however agree with your points about WvW… But at the end of the day it’s still going to be about logistics. Making everyone feel viable in the zerg is hard to do and is the real struggle which does have a place in balance. This is unfortunately a design issue as well, but there already are builds that do work and in fact do feel rewarding and viable.

I do agree with a lot of your points, and I have the same ideals when it comes to a primarily PvE game or a primarily large scale battle type games.

However for how this game was marketed as well as how it’s system works, Balancing it’s base numbers around PvP and then branching out to the various sections of the game imo would still be best.

Yes PvP has a dwindling population however it can still be the place where the base numbers and balance starts. In the long run it will in fact make all three parts of the game feel good with a proper foundation.

zMajc.4659:

I have never ever played or seen a MMO where people were satisfied with class ballance. It’s a battle with Windmills from start onwards.

The more you try to ballance them they more messed up it gets in the end.

I played like 5 ‘balanced’ mmos, which is kind of a high rate considering that I’ve only played 8 MMOs to a point where balance matters.

@OP I don’t think this will help at all, because
a) classes in GW2 are not meant be balanced perfectly and that sweetspot anet aims for is really hard to hit.
b) you can’t claim that anet has no clue where to go balance wise just because their goals differ from our wishes. They take community feedback into consideration only to a point and decide based on their own image of the game for the majority of changes. Addionally, there are differences in priority -mostly due to company strategy, I assume- which we can’t change either.

Imho they know exactly where to go, it’ll simply take upwards of 2 years until they come close. Whether the game is still populated by then is another question, but they set this course back when they decided their game’s core and there is no way of changing it now- even if it turns out to be bad.

Escadin, I think the point was that no matter how balanced an individual player perceives a game to be (for example, I think GW2 is actually fairly well-balanced, comparing Everquest 1 or Dark Age of Camelot), the forums of every MMO are filled with complaints about class balance.

In a certain way it’s no wonder devs are bad at taking player feedback on this – they got no way to judge whether they’re doing anything right or wrong as far as feedback goes. You do change X => 200 threads complaining. You do change Y => 200 threads complaining. You balance out damage => endless complaints about unfair balance. You balance out design => endless complaints about unfair balance.

It’s always like that. The forums here feel no different – a bit more aggressive and toxic, tbh – than the forums of DAoC. A game which subjectively had far worse class balance in all aspects of the game, but the forums don’t tell you that; they seem exactly the same.

You’re right forums are always a bad place to look for an objective opinion on balance, popularity, you name it. On the other hand there is really TONS of constructive feedback here as well as many valid concerns.
I sometimes wonder the point of feedback forums. I mean they introduced them for a reason which can only be “everyone else does it”, “we actually do try to care about feedback”, or “give customers a chance to complain, because they’ll quit faster otherwise”.
Frankly, some devs seem actually frightened of feedback because there will always be complaints, which is why almost all game companies share the mantra “make as few people angry as possible”. It’s not the best game that wins, it’s the game with a status quo which angers the least people. As result modern games lost all character over a truckload of comprises.
This makes me miss the old times were games with character were designed to fit nothing but the dev’s preferences… oh well they’re gone. Gaming industry is a serious business now. Designing a successful game for a certain niche where there is no competition left anyway can’t be that hard but who would purposly aim for mediocrity when you have the funds to create a triple AAA all star abomination from salvaged and proven products?

…but let’s not get sidetracked. They won’t redo entire aspects of the game based on our feedback (or for any reason at all actually) but when it comes to balance, they should at least point out their vision to us so we have a clue where the game is heading if our feedback is that wide off the mark. This would make it easier to differ plainly negative feedback from valid concerns and accurate, constructive suggestions.