Guild Wars 2

Justin ODell.9517:

We’re aware of the community desire for these sort of arenas, but at this time we do not want to fragment the player base by having more than two arenas at a time.

Hi Justin,

I’m skeptical of balance in regards to 2v2/3v3 arena style combat as professions are tuned for Conquest mode with balance emphasis on specialized roles.

Could you please relay Developments thoughts on the foreseeable comparative viability between teams, in other words — the likelihood that teams of differing professions or builds have near equal chance of winning?

Yolo Swaggins, your thesis doesn’t apply to strict group/team balance, which is arguably how this game is designed.

Strict team balance distributes utility between players, meaning you have to rely on allies to provide counters/support.

While counters in GW2 generally aren’t that extreme, build weaknesses likely exist which have no efficient answer, thereby affording some credibility to the “whiners”.

The misconception with these players however is their failure to acknowledge that strict team balance implies 1v1 imbalance, therefore rendering their point moot; the game isn’t balanced for 1v1.

There’s no single build equip to effectively deal with every other, which places a higher emphasis of skill on team composition and map placement/awareness.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

i find these people to be so full of themselves, very so arrogantly assuming that everyone else hates the downed state and will always make noise on the forums attempting to remove downed state in vain.

Could it be because you don’t understand or empathize with their perspective?

The same fear you have for your loss of enjoyment if down state were removed is the very real displeasure players who don’t enjoy the mechanic have to put up while playing.

Granted; down state certainly has its moments, but I also think it restricts some very enjoyable possibilities! But I guess we’ll never know…

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

perhaps “mildly annoying to myself” would be more proper.

I think so.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

i find the people who find downed state to be “toxic to pvp” are rather “toxic to the community” themselves.

How so?

Hi Zero,

I think you should state the motivation for your suggestion so others can sympathize how change could be beneficial and evaluate whether your solution fixes the perceived problem/s without creating any new ones.

Zero.8045:

Personally, I like the downed state but it needed to be different somehow without taking the whole concept out of the picture.

• Why does it need to be different?
• Why is it important to maintain the mechanics?

Hope this helps!

frans.8092:

game mechanics do not have not be changed because something annoys you.

And what do you think better incentives change? This is supposed to be entertainment after-all.

Granted though; people rarely know what they want.

I know this doesn’t entirely address your problems OP, but nevertheless:

Erebos.6741:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Allow-Stomping-while-other-guy-is-Stealthed/first

ArenaNet’s response towards the bottom of the first page.

Hi Hobotnicax,

I get the impression Development doesn’t care.

The fact that you among many are unhappy should be purpose enough, yet despite lasting objection, there hasn’t been much discussion let alone change regarding the topic.

If the time ever comes when they do review down state, I hope they consider the fundamental worth — like they did with underwater combat.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/Allow-Stomping-while-other-guy-is-Stealthed/first

ArenaNet’s response towards the bottom of the first page.

Normally I’d think you were trolling, but judging by your small post history I’m guessing you’re just new to PvP.

You can combo one or more abilities with stomping to improve your chances of success.
These include:

• Invulnerability
• Stability
• Stealth
• Blinding downed player/Smoke field
• Quickness
• Block/Aegis
• Teleport
• Dazing downed player

Also Warriors and Engineers first downed ability is a projectile, which means they can be obstructed by pets and players in your way.

Also if you anticipate their downed ability you can preemptively dodge it, often cancelling your stomp animation in the process. This slightly reduces the time it takes to initiate another stomp compared to eating their interrupt.

If it’s got a ladder, it’s competitive by way of evoking rivalry.

Solo Queue aims to interpret personal value as a dissociating factor based off match success, but success largely relies on the quality of teammates.

Players are rightfully free to participate, but it’s not fair on others to purposely play sub-optimally, e.g test builds.

silvermember.8941:

Except for the multi rez per downed, most of the bad points amounts to “QQ I hate change no other mmorpg has this feature”.

In other words: “I don’t agree with this —> draw abstract conclusion.”

Exedore.6320:

There are a million topics about this. It’s been explained why it’s a good thing. Search for them.

Don’t forget to ignore the bad points too.

Such an awesome mechanic!

Ehecatl.9172:

So long as that burst exists we need the downed state.

Now whether or not we should remove the extreme burst as an option is an entirely different debate.

It’s absolutely relevant as you clearly noted a relationship between burst and down state.

It seems you’re saying we “need” down state because burst exceeds normal human reaction time, so I’m asking you: do you think that’s a rational approach to game design which also aims to distinguish players based on their knowledge and adroitness (skill)?

Ehecatl.9172:

Erebos.6741:

So down state is an enabler for over-the-top burst?

Down state is the counter to over the top burst. If you massively reduced the damage someone can do in a short time frame so that bursting someone to nothing isn’t an option then sure, remove down state. But I have a feeling the people who actually enjoy that playstyle won’t be too happy about it.

Then of course you’d have to look at bunkers who would then be immortal. So you gotta nerf that to keep it in line with reduced damage. I’m sure they won’t be super happy about being nerfed either.

Basically you’d have to completely overhaul the entire game if you removed the down state.

So you agree down state obligates extreme burst, which subsequently demands extreme defense.

Would you agree burst beyond sensible human reaction time is irrational for a game that hopes to distinguish players based on skill?

Ehecatl.9172:

Once more, without down state a thief jumping me from nowhere would just kill me. There’s no counter play to that. The downed state counterbalances extreme burst so there’s at least a CHANCE to get back up, rather than being immediately shut down by someone you didn’t even know was there until you were on the ground.

So down state is an enabler for over-the-top burst?

oZii.2864:

Erebos.6741:

If anyone’s interested in reading some more 1v1 balance discussion — here’s a former topic of mine discussing just that:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/1v1-Balance/first

Thanks!

This was a good read thanks for the link.

You’re welcome, and I’m glad you liked it.

To those trying to define balance: it doesn’t change meaning when regarding RPG’s or whatever else, it simply means equal proportion.

So 1v1 balance for example aims to give each player comparative capability to afford them fair chance of winning, while group/team balance targets fairness between teams.

If anyone’s interested in reading some more 1v1 balance discussion — here’s a former topic of mine discussing just that:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/pvp/1v1-Balance/first

Thanks!

oZii.2864:

My issues with the “1v1” balance are:

• Nerf something based on 1v1 balance you indirectly make it weaker in group play.

This is a common misconception, for if a game is designed with 1v1 balance in mind it could exclude group utility from the equation, i.e. Abilities considered useful in (1+x)v(1+x) scenarios will be sub-par in 1v1, such as AoE’s.

oZii.2864:

My biggest issue:

snip

If I understood you correctly, it seems your biggest gripe with 1v1 balance is players complaining under the assumption that GW2 is balanced for 1v1, which doesn’t actually address 1v1 balance itself.

- You did make this remark however:

oZii.2864:

If I could have it all why would I ever need to build any other way the best build would be discovered and I wouldn’t try new and different builds.

It’s difficult, but not impossible to make different playstyles that are comparatively balanced. I don’t know if you’ll accept this as a good example — because it’s a different genre of game, but StarCraft achieves comparative 1v1 balance despite different playstyles and build orders between races.

Transposing for the RPG model: the reason you would try new builds would simply be to explore different (but near-equally effective), playstyles.

Brew Pinch.5731:

Sounds like an exciting, memorable shift in the fight. Should have been more careful there, but at least you had an unforgettable experience.

Perhaps you would be inclined to adding one-hit-kill abilities into the game? Same principal; disproportionately effective ability compared to other in-game competencies.

CMstorm.8679:

snip

Skill should largely determine combat effectiveness to prosper competition by way of success gained through hardship.

Reviving is already too easygoing, lets not make it brainless.

Justin ODell.9517:

I really like this idea!

Allie Murdock.8152:

This is definitely an interesting idea.

What do you guys like about the idea?

Could it be you agree rallying is too volatile, i.e unpredictable; not intuitively traceable, and/or “stupid”, meaning it contradicts good game design?

How is it stupid? Considering games are designed for entertainment, how does it hamper fun?
Could it be because fun is the result of rewarding outcome proportional to the hardship spent? Whereby the difficulty of reviving is generally easier compared to downing players?
Or because rallying is triggered by a decisive objective? Meaning it’s basically a bonus as defeating players is already incentivized so players don’t need to go out of their way (see hardship).

Justin ODell.9517:

I really like this idea! Just sent an email to the team about it.

So… what’d they say?

Thedenofsin.7340:

Now listen to me as I speak the following words in the voice of Morgan Freeman:

Erebos.6741:

Skyhammer is fair in the sense that it offers equal opportunity through symmetrical design, but it also promotes control abilities to the point of narrowing effective build diversity and devaluing combat through cheap mechanics.

Still it’s balanced and there are probably people who enjoy the playstyle, so I think it should stay, however, there are obviously many people who don’t enjoy it, so I think the best solution is to allow options to check (enable/disable) maps so everyone is happy.

[+1] Garethh/Lue

Opinions of any demographic are worthless without verifiable truth.

Skyhammer is fair in the sense that it offers equal opportunity through symmetrical design, but it also promotes control abilities to the point of narrowing effective build diversity and devaluing combat through cheap mechanics.

Still it’s balanced and there are probably people who enjoy the playstyle, so I think it should stay, however, there are obviously many people who don’t enjoy it, so I think the best solution is to allow options to check (enable/disable) maps so everyone is happy.

coglin.1867:

This “down state is broken” crud is utter rubbish. It is simply a cheap excuse to blame ones own failure in battle. This becomes evident when everyone blames it, yet doesn’t have a single actual fact to support the claim. Just because you dislike it’s functionality is by no means an indication of a problem.

How have you missed my arguments?

E.g.

Erebos.6741:

Lopez.7369:

Success reflects competency and competence is possession of required skill, but how does skill determine the success of combat if down state triggers passively, lowers the capability/skills influence of the afflicted and presents unfair vantage by rewarding the falling side with reviving capability?

Hello and thanks for your feedback Tatsuo!

Tatsuo.1478:

Actually if it is not balanced 1v1, then it is especially not balanced 5v5. So this cliché that game is balanced around 5v5 is nothing more than excuse which is harder to see.

Sorry; I don’t understand why you think 5v5 balance requires 1v1 balance to be made possible. Could you please explain?

Tatsuo.1478:

That is clever disguise of Anet.

I know Word of Warcraft development stated they’re aiming for 3v3 balance (although that could have changed by now), but I don’t know of Guild Wars 2’s philosophy.

Did I miss something?

magic fly.2041:

Down state in pvp, as has been described multiple times, hinders skillful play and makes it next to impossible to win while outnumbered.
It is a major problem in pvp.

I don’t really have anything to say that hasn’t been said before, and am mostly just posting to add my voice to the number of people against downstate in pvp.

[+1]

Blades of Sabatine.5639:

Snip

I don’t think you’ve quite grasped what 1v1 balance implies.

Look to the following examples to see the differences.

GROUP BALANCE

Builds: a > b > c > a

Team1:
a + b + c

Team2:
a + c + c
__

1v1 BALANCE:

Abilities: a > b > c > a

Player1:
a + b + c

Player2:
a + c + c

Both examples are balanced, but the difference is group balance relies on allies to provide counters, while 1v1 balance relies on the individual to choose the correct abilities.

In other words, group balance promotes skill through smart teamplay, while 1v1 balance encourages individual skill through smart ability use.

Something to note however is that groups can easily become imbalanced depending on the matchup.

E.g:
Team1:
a + a + b

Team2:
b + b + b

This could be controlled if teams weren’t random, such as a system that balances groups by assigning roles. If you’re familiar with World of Warcraft, it could act like their dungeon finder, but for PvP.

The same could be said for 1v1 balance (like what Ronpierce was getting at), because traits/talent trees, utility bar slots, etc, enables players to customize their characters, however a carefully crafted system could allow the illusion of customization but really account for all the possible choices.

p.s. And no that’s not a typo; a + b + c – a + c + c = 0. Think about it.

Blades of Sabatine.5639:

Just like rock paper scissors, this cannot be balanced. If as a rock and come across scissors, in hind side, rock should win. But there are occasion when it doesn’t.

Does that mean rock is balanced against scissors, NO.

I was confused at first because I thought you were only talking about the actual game: Rock, Paper, Scissors. :P

If you interpret Rock and Scissors to represent professions (or builds if you prefer), than that’s not a fair comparison, because GW2 builds don’t HARD counter one another in the literal sense like Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Blades of Sabatine.5639:

And say you now balance scissors against rock to have a fighting chance by harden it up, what happens to paper vs scissors, no contest anymore. And say you beef up paper again scissors, guess what happened next. Paper will outclass rock. And this goes round and round.

This is what Rogue is trying to explain. It is just impossible to balance 1v1 unless you want no diversity which will make the game really boring.

I understand what you mean; the direct relationship between Rock, Paper, Scissor balance means that buffing any one skill will upset the balance; making that skill overpowered.
- This is not what 1v1 balance implies, in fact it asks for the opposite; equal capability.

bhagwad.4281:

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.

Sarcasm detected. :P

Curiously, what component/s of 1v1 balance imply 5v5 imbalance? — for example.

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.

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:

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.

style.6173:

It does not allow for build diversity.

We have a conclusion.

This was part of what my first post was hinting towards. Now all you need to do is list points of reason which support this idea, granted, everyone agrees build diversity is a good thing in the first place (which they should/probably do).

Apologies — if I offended you earlier.

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

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!

style.6173:

Edit: Actually nevermind. It seems you are running one of the specs that I criticized. That explains why you don’t like my list.

I never said I don’t like your suggestion/list, in fact I anticipated this kind of retort and rejected that premise in my earlier post to avoid this discussion.

FYI: I’m taking a break at the moment (possibly indefinitely), but I used to play a static discharge variant on my Engie for several months, and I can prove it, but that’s beside the point.

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.

style.6173:

@ANET:

Instead of all the different changes that you have discussed, just start with the OP spec for each profession. Tone those down, and then see how things start to play out. This constant random changing of skills is not productive.
—
Any of your other changes are pointless right now. The specs above need the focus.

I don’t think their changes are random; they have concise goals to warrant their alterations, however what’s the point of your proposal? It sounds like the very stigma you ascribed for ANet; random changes.

Note that I didn’t say your suggestion is bad, only your post isn’t very constructive if you can’t convey reasoning.

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.

@ 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!

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?

I’m not sure I understood question 1 correctly if you would like to reiterate?

Edit:
Did you mean to ask whether it’s too hard to balance matches so that team compositions of any format can compete effectively?

A. Because I think that’s a hard goal by anyone’s standards if you also want classes to play differently.

While you don’t need to balance for 1v1 per-say, you will need to balance each professions role against comparative roles; RoleA from ClassA can be weaker than RoleB from ClassB, but RoleB from ClassA must be balanced against RoleB from ClassB.

1. I interpret you mean that you feel x class/es have superseded team value, meaning other classes can fill their role better.
   If this is indeed fact, than that’s evidence to suggest it could be a complicated issue (for ArenaNet staff at the very least). Alternatively it could just mean they’re not trying. :P
2. While SoloQ requires team effort and players have variable value, the ladder aims to interpret personal value as a dissociating factor based off your match influence.
3. To allow players alternative means of rated/competitive play with the aim to disclose individual player ability.
4. There could be a multitude of reasons (balance for one), but you are right to be confused because the game title is a little misleading, as Guild Wars 2 doesn’t actually directly support guild versus guild play.
5. Relatively low resources and it naturally takes time. Also staff competence and time management could be at fault.

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.

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?

This might be somewhat unrelated, but I’ve had people follow me before to no avail. For example when I leave the gates on my way to close point and an ally does the same. I quickly change course to mid, but they follow…

I’ve stood still before and they sat there with me… unless they’re a bot, they’re not afk because if we engaged in fights they would help. I guess they were just new and didn’t have the confidence to be on their own and/or were trying to learn something from me?

I’ve had this happen on at least 3 separate occasions… but it’s always in hotjoin — so it’s fine I guess.

Ceraldor.3160:

1. Offensive builds rely much more on luck than defensive builds.

Point of OP is: In a game where off and def stats are balanced, the chance that the winner of a fight is actually the better player is much higher when 2 tanky teams play compared to 2 gc fighting each other.

Assume characters deal 5 damage per attack, have 0% base critical hit chance & critical damage coefficient is double (x2).

Example 1:

Build A:
+20% critical hit chance.
Build B:
20% chance on attack to restore 10HP.

Example 2:

Build A:
+5% damage.
Build B:
-5% damage.

Voila! Equally skill demanding & luck dependent offensive and defensive builds.