Build diversity should be the main focus of the Dev team..no meta balancing — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home PVP

Build diversity should be the main focus of the Dev team..no meta balancing

Supreme.3164Supreme.3164 Member ✭✭✭
edited July 14, 2020 in PVP

I believe that the majority of players paid to play a MMO and not a watered down MOBA , coming from GW1 and see the sorry status of the build diversity is simply...heartbreaking . So much focus on meta balancing that little time get invested into what should be improved, balance is not all about "nerfing" as a small vocal minority would want us to believe, making the gameplay exciting is what draw people to the gamemode , build experimentation is what keeps player in.

Been forced to play a single build for a profession is not what someone would come to expect when used to the gameplay found in GW1, expecting people to play a single role for each class....it's completely unacceptable, this is a MMO= online role playing videogame and it's not a MOBA= multiplayer battle arena

I am expecting to play any given role to certain degree with every class , nowhere in the selection screen it says that your class can only be played as support or DPS and nothing else, ofc there are design preferences for each class and that would be expected from any basic design and what we should see there after is profession being able to cover other roles in minor/major version in the accordance to their original design

Just comparing GW1 PvP meta buld selection to GW2 one....

GW1 https://gwpvx.gamepedia.com/Category:Meta_working_PvP_builds VS GW2 https://www.godsofpvp.net/

Too much focus spent trying to please a very vocal minority and not enough time spent trying to improve what does not work and the truth is that the very vocal minority will never be able to support the gamemode , when you try to please the elites too much...your game dies in the end

You devs have examples of MMOs failing trying to follow that example ...heck Anet parent company owned Wild Star , you can't have better example of that : failure when trying to please a small minority

An example of this failing strategy:
-Birds did too much dmg so nerf them...well though change, necessary for the betterment of the game and now...what about improving the AI pathing of other pets?....nothing get done
-Warrior have too much passive sustain so we reduce it...again necessary change but then...we need more balanced ways for warrior to achieve that sustain....again nothing get done

I can make several examples for each class but no point in doing that, the idea here is to explain how too much focus on meta balancing will inevitably lead to the "death" of the game, players simply become tired of playing the same way, the same build over and over again...and they're forced to do so because the rest doesn't work.
This is the PvP segment of a MMO and it's not a MOBA and it's time for the GW2 community to fully accept it and if you don't..just go

<1

Comments

  • If you look at history of most MMORPG with successful PvP scene, it is not about perfect balance or build diversity, it is all about regular meta shifts.

  • Shiyo.3578Shiyo.3578 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2020

    I completely disagree 100%. I do not want to play a game where druid is top tier, or burn guardian is top tier, mirage is top tier, or turret eng is top tier, deadeye is top tier, minion necro, etc. These are completely unfun trash things to fight that no one wants to play against.

    There are too many fundamentally flawed classes and builds in this game that do not belong in PvP.

  • Supreme.3164Supreme.3164 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shiyo.3578 said:
    I completely disagree 100%. I do not want to play a game where druid is top tier, or burn guardian is top tier, mirage is top tier, or scrapper is top tier, deadeye is top tier, etc. These are completely unfun trash things to fight that no one wants to play against.

    There are too many fundamentally flawed classes and builds in this game that do not belong in PvP.

    Purpose of build diversity is to give a multitude of choices to the player...not to create a perfect scenario, again this is a MMO and not a MOBA, the first is about creating enjoyable gameplay experience..the latter is about creating a competitive environment online with a rigid structure of rules.

    The major difference anyway is that with MMO : players spend thousand of hours/money to enjoy a specific class however they see fit based on the original design concept, ofc balance is necessary to make sure everybody keeps having fun, we cannot have mechanics/build that ruin it all for everybody.

    With that said..the idea that each class should only have access to builds you like to face ( I imagine builds you can win against) does not belong in a MMO...that's more MOBA kind of gameplay

  • Shiyo.3578Shiyo.3578 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2020

    I don't care if little Jimmy wants to play an interactive movie turret engineer build and is mad he can't win as it, that doesn't belong in the game for the sake of "Diversity!".

    The OPs mentality is actually the #1 reason this games pvp has always been in a bad state and why anet has constantly DELETED entire amulets sigils runes etc. Rules need to exist, too much creativity and options in builds is BAD.

  • Shiyo.3578Shiyo.3578 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Supreme.3164 said:

    @Shiyo.3578 said:
    I don't care if little Jimmy wants to play an interactive movie turret engineer build and is mad he can't win as it, that doesn't belong in the game for the sake of "Diversity!".

    I am talking about build diversity not balance. As I have stated already there is always need for balance but killing build diversity got nothing to do with balance. Yes I agree with you that something like turret engi doesn't make much for a fun build to play against but we need something for core engi to play with at least, that's build diversity and the devs are killing it. They're nerfing to balance ok...but they leave stuff untouched for years which is not right, they promised bigger build diversity than GW1 given the reduced the number of skills...but right now we have exactly the opposite

    I didn't play GW1 but bad balance is why build diversity is so low. As someone said in another thread, if your build can't instantly remove 3+ condis it's unviable as condi thief will instantly kill you and remove you from the match making it 4vs5.

    If your build is condi but can't remove resistance, it's unviable due to condi rev, is another example.

    Balance matters for diversity. It matters a lot, actually.

  • Supreme.3164Supreme.3164 Member ✭✭✭

    @Shiyo.3578 said:

    @Supreme.3164 said:

    @Shiyo.3578 said:
    I don't care if little Jimmy wants to play an interactive movie turret engineer build and is mad he can't win as it, that doesn't belong in the game for the sake of "Diversity!".

    I am talking about build diversity not balance. As I have stated already there is always need for balance but killing build diversity got nothing to do with balance. Yes I agree with you that something like turret engi doesn't make much for a fun build to play against but we need something for core engi to play with at least, that's build diversity and the devs are killing it. They're nerfing to balance ok...but they leave stuff untouched for years which is not right, they promised bigger build diversity than GW1 given the reduced the number of skills...but right now we have exactly the opposite

    I didn't play GW1 but bad balance is why build diversity is so low. As someone said in another thread, if your build can't instantly remove 3+ condis it's unviable as condi thief will instantly kill you and remove you from the match making it 4vs5.

    If your build is condi but can't remove resistance, it's unviable due to condi rev, is another example.

    Balance matters for diversity. It matters a lot, actually.

    You are correct! But look here if you just nerf the condi thief...the player who accustomed himself with playing that build will possibly leave the game and pop will suffer, the condi thief build may become unfun to use...what if instead you bring an unused weapon/utility and make so now it can instantly clear 3+ condis and counter the condi thief?

    You may bring onboard a player who enjoy play that weapon set but never tried PvP up to that moment because his favorite weapon was unusable and now it's good for something and the condi thief player while he may lose now to the new build...he will keep winning against other build : you create build diversity and increased population.

    Mine was a convoluted example but I hope you get the general idea

  • Shiyo.3578Shiyo.3578 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2020

    I agree with your 2nd thing, it's why I have a huge thread about my thief changes suggestions and there are numerous changes to adding condi removal/transfer to multiple weapon sets because I feel that condi cleanse is too important and you're hard locked into certain weapon/util choices to have them.

    An example is: Shadowstep is condi removal(3), stun break, AND a teleport. This ability is so bloated, so I removed the stun break off it and put it on caltrops, a skill that's useless in every game mode, while adding condi removal or additional condi removal to a some weapon sets (D/D and Sword) to open up options.

    Things are the way they are because you need x amount of stun breaks and x amount of condi removal or you're a sitting duck, but all that happens is you're hard locked into those weapons and utils just to survive and it destroys build diversity.

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    A company of professional game devs should be able to provide at least sufficient balance AND build diversity, there's no excuse to only provide one or the other.
    Of course 100% balance is unattainable but no one expects that.

  • Aktium.9506Aktium.9506 Member ✭✭✭

    @Supreme.3164 said:
    Just comparing GW1 PvP meta buld selection to GW2 one....

    The GW1 page you posted contains all meta builds for 7 different PvP game modes.

    At that point you might as well post meta builds for WvW zerging, WvW smallscale, solo roaming, 2v2, 3v3, Stronghold and GvG for GW2

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2020

    @Aktium.9506 said:

    @Supreme.3164 said:
    Just comparing GW1 PvP meta buld selection to GW2 one....

    The GW1 page you posted contains all meta builds for 7 different PvP game modes.

    At that point you might as well post meta builds for WvW zerging, WvW smallscale, solo roaming, 2v2, 3v3, Stronghold and GvG for GW2

    Actually, that page housed only a small portion of the working meta builds from gw1. There was at the time, a more popular website that housed nearly every single build and comp for all game modes...which was in the thousands, but it had been shutdown, and from what i remember many builds were lost because of lack of backups of the site...or something like that.

    I could name off the top of my head, at least 10 popular working builds for warrior from sheer memory alone:
    BB Hammer War (An Assassin/Warrior build that used Backbreaker to knock you down for 4 seconds to perform a chain of assassin skills to eliminate an enemy.)
    Earth Shaker War (A somewhat popular GvG based build that utilized AOE knockdowns)
    Dwarven Battle Stance Int War (A build that used DBS to interrupt an enemy constantly)
    Shove spike War (An A/W build that used Shove.)
    Primal Axe Wars (A build mainly used in Iway, but it saw it's uses as a standalone in build in RA)
    MageHunters (An option for EarthShaker or Dev Hammer wars to use that ensured KD's on monks)
    Shock Axe (The meta axe build for most of the time period of the game...just an all around fun axe build to play. It had a number of varients that they list their on the wiki, like coward axe, and starburst axe. Much less common than shock axe but ya there was a bunch of variations on the build)
    Dev Hammer (The other more common meta build for Hammer Warrior.)

    Then there's less common but still quiet popular builds like Hundred Blade Spikers, Defy Pain Tank Wars, One shot Decapitate Wars...and can't forget the Headbutt Sword and axe builds.

    Basically almost every elite on the class had a useable to meta viable build, and there are builds that use other class attributes that used warrior skills but are considered as builds of the other class. So everything i named is just the tip of the iceberg for just warrior.

    Really wish that website was still around because they had every single build man. Really it was a shame when it vanished.

  • Kuma.1503Kuma.1503 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2020

    I would love it if the constant nerfs could take a back seat for a bit so Anet could focus on fixing things that don't work.

    Scrapper - What is it supposed to be? A support? A tank? if it is a tank, why is Vitality its trade-off? If it's a support, why was the heal transfer trait nerfed, and why does it have so few supportive traits? If it's a bruiser, why was hammer damage gutted to the point where it cannot reasonably generate barrier? This class fails in all game modes but one, and it's arguably one of the most dead.

    Druid - First things first. Rework the unique buffs of spirits into boons. Perhaps then, the stranglehold it has over the raid scene can finally be lessened. After that, perhaps we can start giving Druid some of its damage back and buff it's other support abilities. Trevor had some interesting suggestions on what could be done to this class, and I agree with 90% of what he said.

    Mirage - This class needs a rework. The trade-off is a band-aid fix at best on a class that is in desperate need of significant changes. Most would agree that the crux of the issue with Mirage is IH and damage tied to dodge. There have been numerous suggestions on how you can make it more healthy, including causing ambush to trigger on shatter.

    Chronomancer - What are its traits attempting to accomplish? This class has had its trait synergies nerfed countless times, to the point where the class is now a clunky, unfun mess to play. Why is it so reliant on slow when its access to slow is so limited? Slow is the rarest condition in the game due to how allegedly powerful it is. If Chrono is going to be a buffer/debuffer class built around Alacrity, Quickness, and Slow then it needs to have the tools and trait synergies to facilitate that.

    Core Ele - It needs to be given the Revenant treatment. Give it something that makes you want to pick it over tempest or weaver.

    Core Engi - Arguably the second worst core class in the game. Engi has suffered repeated nerfs, all with the intention of bringing down its over performing elite spec. One way that you could give some love to engi is to give it improved Kits. And perhaps Giving them the option to equip a kit in place of their weapon swap. Have the kit use the stats and sigils of whatever weapon is equipped in that slot and let them toggle between the kit and the weapon with a button in the equipment menu.

    Perhaps also consider taking their utilities out of the stone age?

    Revenant - This class is a menace in PvP, but Herald is actually pretty bad in PvE. It's outclassed by Renegade in every way. Renegade is a superior Boon Support, Power DPS, Condi DPS, and healer. However, since this is the PvP subforum, I will suggest PvP centric changes:

    Fix their weapons. Shortbow fixes were a step in the right direction. SB 2 still misses moving targets. Sb 4 still can't be cased behind you. Staff 5 is still a clunky mess that needs to have the self root removed. Sword 3 is still buggy, and frequently fails to latch onto targets for a number of reasons (make it instant like smoke assault). Nerf them if you must, but there's no excuse for their weapons not to function for as long as they have.

    And that is the extent of the classes that I am remotely knowledgable about. I'm sure others can give more examples. This game needs a tune-up

  • Shiyo.3578Shiyo.3578 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2020

    Herald should lose boons entirely and it should be a renegade thing. Not sure why a pure DPS spec has infinite boons via herald, it's really dumb and why the class is so overpowered in PvP and trash in PvE.

  • Shao.7236Shao.7236 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2020

    Build diversity is not something people want in MMO's, what people want is to win and get results right away. If you actually care to see build diversity, contact me personally and I'll show you how much there is on the table for my favorite class that nobody cares of in any aspect but one, I do off side stuff but never seriously enough since I prefer focusing in one place.

    @Shiyo.3578 You must be joking, Herald makes it hardly DPS when half the efficient is cut down into boons investment.

    Willing to help with anything Revenant related.

  • bluri.2653bluri.2653 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Master Ketsu.4569 said:
    Diversity is a false god.

    The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

    X = 20 x1000
    Y = 5x10000
    Y>X
    50000>20000

    To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

    The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

    Thank you for being the only one with common sense. This also makes the better players better.

    +1

    www.twitch.tv/sindrener - Rank 55 Dragons/Orange Logo/Team Aggression

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2020

    For PvP to be balanced, removing most of the build customization available and only allowing predefined builds (talent/skills/amulet/weapon/sigil/runes) for each class is the only way.
    Then, they would be free to make both PvE and PvP nice to play.

  • Kuma.1503Kuma.1503 Member ✭✭✭

    @Master Ketsu.4569 said:
    Diversity is a false god.

    The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

    X = 20 x1000
    Y = 5x10000
    Y>X
    50000>20000

    To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

    The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

    Unfortunately, Anet chose the worst of both worlds. Killing diversity, and nerfing classes by making them clunkier and/or less fun to play.

  • Ysmir.4986Ysmir.4986 Member ✭✭✭

    I also don't understand the builds > balance argument since there are builds that are perfectly fine as they are in their role (warrior) but because other builds are easier to play, more oppressive (condi revs) and deal more damage (holo) to the point of "wat", these viable builds are less viable in the general meta. So if you address the most problematic builds you let others take the stage.

    Also, there will always be builds that are better than others and that's fine.

  • Ultramex.1506Ultramex.1506 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2020

    i still hope that one day.....Turret will be viable.

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭✭

    @Arheundel.6451 said:

    @Kulvar.1239 said:
    For PvP to be balanced, removing most of the build customization available and only allowing predefined builds (talent/skills/amulet/weapon/sigil/runes) for each class is the only way.
    Then, they would be free to make both PvE and PvP nice to play.

    If you want predefined builds..go play League of Legends, people didn't sign for a MOBA and this is NOT A MOBA..dunno why the people don't get it, this is a PvE based MMO with some PvP elements. The ezport "legends" should go and play a different game

    Then forsake any balance and fun, PvP will be forever doomed to be trash.

  • Bigpapasmurf.5623Bigpapasmurf.5623 Member ✭✭✭✭

    True build diversity cant be a thing in PvP in GW2 due to the amulet system (stat system and restrictions on whats available)

    Red = Dead...or someone runs away. Either way it's gone.
    twitch.tv/TRMC
    Lover of Jumping puzzles, Squirrels, WvW, and Taimi
    CLOK Commander and all around nice bro

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2020

    @Master Ketsu.4569 said:
    Diversity is a false god.

    The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

    X = 20 x1000
    Y = 5x10000
    Y>X
    50000>20000

    To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

    The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

    My guess would be when people say good build diversity they are referring to having 5 or so well balanced and viable builds across the roster, not 1 or 2 and not 20+ builds.
    Half the traits being useless, unused or bugged as well as poor balancing on skills I suspect are why people complain about build deversity being low. When u keep gw2 trait and build system in mind proper balance and actual attention given to underperforming, unused or buggy traits could definitely result in higher build deversity. It's a shame with gw2 potential as far as builds to see everyone running the same builds.

  • Khalisto.5780Khalisto.5780 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Nope

    Even if you have 100 viable builds only few of those will perform well in higher tiers, and the community will naturally lean towards them

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2020

    @Khalisto.5780 said:
    Nope

    Even if you have 100 viable builds only few of those will perform well in higher tiers, and the community will naturally lean towards them

    In this case yeah but its possible to have one build naturally be more viable in some cases and others in other cases not this one build is better in all cases mentality. If one build being the one used in high play is what we want to strive for than make things way easier for the devs to balance and just delete the trait and build system and set it to one build, have the weapons and their skills add the variety that way in the end were all playing the same builds and is easier to balance, I mean u may as well right? Since we're all gonna play the one most broken build anyway.

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2020

    @Master Ketsu.4569 said:
    Diversity is a false god.

    The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

    X = 20 x1000
    Y = 5x10000
    Y>X
    50000>20000

    To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

    The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

    Diversity a false god? And yet nearly all things we currently know to exist function on the premise of highly diverse complex systems;
    Wikipedia:
    image

    Chess is a homogeneous game in design, and it’s a fair design to have but it works only because it is completely homogenous, and such is not a valid description of gw2. As pscyoprophet alluded to, you can’t turn gw2 into a homogenous game without removing player choice. Ie; stick wars 2.

  • Khalisto.5780Khalisto.5780 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Psycoprophet.8107 said:

    @Khalisto.5780 said:
    Nope

    Even if you have 100 viable builds only few of those will perform well in higher tiers, and the community will naturally lean towards them

    In this case yeah but its possible to have one build naturally be more viable in some cases and others in other cases not this one build is better in all cases mentality. If one build being the one used I'm high play is what we want to strive for than make things way easier for the devs to balance and just delete the trait and build system and set it to one build, have the weapons and their skills add the variety that way in the end were all playing the same builds and is easier to balance, I mean u may as well right? Since we're all gonna play the one most broken build anyway.

    I haven't thought of it this way

    Yes, i think everybody wants all traits to meaningful , not like now that you don't even consider picking some traits cuz they straight out garbage, like the 300 sec ones.

    Sooner or later this would lead to balance the meta again

    But I 100% agree we could have a big rework patch and neglect the meta a bit, specially cuz they fail to nerf meta so often, that it would be a better time investment

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭✭

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Master Ketsu.4569 said:
    Diversity is a false god.

    The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

    X = 20 x1000
    Y = 5x10000
    Y>X
    50000>20000

    To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

    The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

    Diversity a false god? And yet nearly all things we currently know to exist function on the premise of highly diverse complex systems;

    https://imgur.com/A5ywbwO

    Chess is a homogeneous game in design, and it’s a fair design to have but it works only because it is completely homogenous, and such is not a valid description of gw2. As pscyoprophet alluded to, you can’t turn gw2 into a homogenous game without removing player choice. Ie; stick wars 2.

    Or have 2-3 predefined builds (glass cannon, condi bunker, heal/support) to pick from per class only, with no other parameter.

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2020

    @Kulvar.1239 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Master Ketsu.4569 said:
    Diversity is a false god.

    The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

    X = 20 x1000
    Y = 5x10000
    Y>X
    50000>20000

    To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

    The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

    Diversity a false god? And yet nearly all things we currently know to exist function on the premise of highly diverse complex systems;

    https://imgur.com/A5ywbwO

    Chess is a homogeneous game in design, and it’s a fair design to have but it works only because it is completely homogenous, and such is not a valid description of gw2. As pscyoprophet alluded to, you can’t turn gw2 into a homogenous game without removing player choice. Ie; stick wars 2.

    Or have 2-3 predefined builds (glass cannon, condi bunker, heal/support) to pick from per class only, with no other parameter.

    Again this is not a valid description of Gw2. Classes are inherently different and there is no way to perfectly balance them towards each other, even if you have a single predefined build for each of one of them. It is only until you give each class the same exact things will it be considered balanced. Otherwise you will always have one class complain that it doesn’t have what the other class has and vice versa.

    Again the premise of the traditional idea of game balance is fundamentally impossible to attain without eliminating player choice.

    There is a well established economic argument that expands on the same dilemma. Imagine you had a capitalist economy, where there are an infinite number of companies trying to sell you a product. If any company wants to get ahead of their competition, other companies will do the same thing in order to remain competitive. Thus the product sold by all these companies will tend toward a homogenous product, where a consumer can no longer differentiate between products meaning even though these products are sold by different companies, they are exactly the same, but equally competitive.

    The conclusion to draw is that this “perfect competition economy” eliminates consumer choice, because one could essentially say that these products could have also been sold by a single monopolistic company, making the perceived infinite amount of choices to actually be just a single choice. Both scenarios are one in the same because of homogeneity.

    This is why diversity in economics is extremely important to how capitalism is able to function at all. You have the choice to go to a diner and eat a 10 dollar quality hamburger or you can go to a fast food joint for some cheap French fries cause you’re in a hurry.

    Choice is driven by the scope of the amount of quality choices you have available to you. It’s the one reason why monopolies were and still are labeled as a huge economic problem since the 1800’s courtesy of the Dutch East India Trading Company.

  • Shiyo.3578Shiyo.3578 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2020

    Reposting because i think this is a much better stance to take in game design for GW2


    Support(aka "Healer") Zero damage, cannot kill anyone and only survive. High team healing, high self healing but low survivability.

    • Firebrand
    • Tempest
    • Scourge
    • Druid
    • Ventari base Revenant

    Team fighter(aka "DPS") Squishy, no self healing, cannot 1vX, cannot 1v1 any duelist, highest dps and burst

    • Chronomancer
    • Berserker
    • Deadeye

    Siege(aka "Caster") Long range damage, plenty of CC, plenty of aoe CC, medium self healing and ok survivability, cannot 1v1 anything

    • Base Elementalist(Staff)
    • Base Necro
    • Base Mesmer(Staff & Scepter)
    • Base Engineer
    • Renegade

    Duelist/1v1er(Aka "Bruiser") ~33% Less DPS and burst than team fighter, but medium self healing. Wins 1v1 against everything except another duelist.

    • Staff/Staff Daredevil
    • Spellbreaker
    • Base ranger
    • DPS Meditations Base Guardian(Great Sword&Sword)
    • Sword Weaver

    Bunker(aka "Tank") Zero damage, high damage reduction but low sustain, high CC but melee range.

    • Base Warrior
    • Bunker Base Guardian(Mace&Hammer)
    • Scrapper
    • Malyx Herald

    Roamer(aka "Scout") High mobility, high disengage, cannot 1v1, low sustain, very low survivability, low DPS but medium burst.

    • Holosmith
    • Mirage
    • Dragon Hunter
    • Daredevil(Dagger+ SB or Sword + SB)
    • Soulbeast
    • Scepter Weaver

    Every team would want a roamer, a support, and at least 1 team fighter. Duelist and bunker are interchangable, siege and team fighter are interchangable.

    Specs/classes would be redesigned to fit the above templates.

    If you cannot even give every class and spec a defined role, you cannot balance the game. You end up with stuff like holosmith that do literally everything S tier.

  • Kulvar.1239Kulvar.1239 Member ✭✭✭

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Kulvar.1239 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Master Ketsu.4569 said:
    Diversity is a false god.

    The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

    X = 20 x1000
    Y = 5x10000
    Y>X
    50000>20000

    To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

    The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

    Diversity a false god? And yet nearly all things we currently know to exist function on the premise of highly diverse complex systems;

    https://imgur.com/A5ywbwO

    Chess is a homogeneous game in design, and it’s a fair design to have but it works only because it is completely homogenous, and such is not a valid description of gw2. As pscyoprophet alluded to, you can’t turn gw2 into a homogenous game without removing player choice. Ie; stick wars 2.

    Or have 2-3 predefined builds (glass cannon, condi bunker, heal/support) to pick from per class only, with no other parameter.

    Again this is not a valid description of Gw2. Classes are inherently different and there is no way to perfectly balance them towards each other, even if you have a single predefined build for each of one of them. It is only until you give each class the same exact things will it be considered balanced. Otherwise you will always have one class complain that it doesn’t have what the other class has and vice versa.

    Again the premise of the traditional idea of game balance is fundamentally impossible to attain without eliminating player choice.

    There is a well established economic argument that expands on the same dilemma. Imagine you had a capitalist economy, where there are an infinite number of companies trying to sell you a product. If any company wants to get ahead of their competition, other companies will do the same thing in order to remain competitive. Thus the product sold by all these companies will tend toward a homogenous product, where a consumer can no longer differentiate between products meaning even though these products are sold by different companies, they are exactly the same, but equally competitive.

    The conclusion to draw is that this “perfect competition economy” eliminates consumer choice, because one could essentially say that these products could have also been sold by a single monopolistic company, making the perceived infinite amount of choices to actually be just a single choice. Both scenarios are one in the same because of homogeneity.

    This is why diversity in economics is extremely important to how capitalism is able to function at all. You have the choice to go to a diner and eat a 10 dollar quality hamburger or you can go to a fast food joint for some cheap French fries cause you’re in a hurry.

    Choice is driven by the scope of the amount of quality choices you have available to you. It’s the one reason why monopolies were and still are labeled as a huge economic problem since the 1800’s courtesy of the Dutch East India Trading Company.

    You can achieve balance with a paper / rock / scissor balance. Limiting build diversity per class let you achieve it.

  • @Kulvar.1239 said:
    You can achieve balance with a paper / rock / scissor balance.

    RPS is a rather big topic we could talk about extensively but I’ll try to keep it short and to the point.

    You can balance the game to the simplicity of RPS. There is a reason it is one of the most popular design philosophies in today’s games. But you don’t have to because diversity yields the same results that RPS does.

    To be more concise, RPS is an analog of complex systems behavior because RPS is a diverse game that is dependent on player choice and is not a homogenous game. For example, Rock is not the same as Paper. If it were, than Rock would be able to defeat Rock and be killed by Scissors. The game is able to function because the elements in the game are different to one another.

    The reason you don’t have to simplify GW2 to the level of an RPS is because of it being an analog to complex systems behavior. Counters will naturally occur in competitive settings because of Anthropics. This is why counters was even mentioned in my first comment on this thread...because they naturally occur as the game becomes more diverse.

    Limiting build diversity per class let you achieve it.

    This is however not true. Like I mentioned previously, RPS is a diverse game, and in addition it is the most simplistic version of a diverse game to exist. One could extrapolate RPS to have thousands of elements to which one thing counters at least one other thing, and you will still have a balanced RPS game.

    For guild wars 2, the problem with simply skipping complex systems analysis and jumping right into applying counters is because of how complex the game already is. You have abilities that we can’t even qualitatively compare to one another...like stability vs Immobilize. How would you even begin to compare the two abilities let alone try to make one a counter to the other one when they are so drastically different in function and usage. To back track on the game now is possible but it is incredibly insurmountable task, and it’s not even necessary to perform because diversification can do this already.

  • Dantheman.3589Dantheman.3589 Member ✭✭✭✭

    There’s way more build diversity than godsofpvp would let you believe. There are actually many builds that will hugely out perform some of them most of the time, so I wouldn’t take too much salt from that list.
    I don’t think it’s as much for meta from gw1 though so your right. Not sure what we can do about it though

  • Azure The Heartless.3261Azure The Heartless.3261 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 16, 2020

    Meta balancing encourages build diversity (or it should, if done well). By tapping down the easiest, most damaging, least vulnerable builds as they surface, you force players to be innovative and explore other options.

    The meta is what happens when players obsessed with doing things optimally are left to their own devices for too long without a stage change. Eventually they find the best, easiest, fastest way to do something, that way becomes known to others, and they play specifically that and nothing else until they get bored.

    Since it is almost impossible to know if something will overperform unless someone plays it and it becomes known that it overperforms, it is almost impossible to balance in a way that does not include some form of consistently hitting (and thus assisting the shaping of) the meta.

    If you don't want to constantly get hit by that balancing effort, play something that isn't meta, and do not share your build with others.

    @Master Ketsu.4569 said:
    The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

    This is the ideal, as long as this meta is not shaped by anything outside of those options being weak to the point of infeasibility.

    [Charr Noises]
    [I play every class!]
    [I don't share builds!]
    [Fight me in the arena anytime!]

  • Axl.8924Axl.8924 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 16, 2020

    @Shiyo.3578 said:
    I agree with your 2nd thing, it's why I have a huge thread about my thief changes suggestions and there are numerous changes to adding condi removal/transfer to multiple weapon sets because I feel that condi cleanse is too important and you're hard locked into certain weapon/util choices to have them.

    An example is: Shadowstep is condi removal(3), stun break, AND a teleport. This ability is so bloated, so I removed the stun break off it and put it on caltrops, a skill that's useless in every game mode, while adding condi removal or additional condi removal to a some weapon sets (D/D and Sword) to open up options.

    Things are the way they are because you need x amount of stun breaks and x amount of condi removal or you're a sitting duck, but all that happens is you're hard locked into those weapons and utils just to survive and it destroys build diversity.

    They could also overhaul scourge aoes if its needed or overhaul engineer turrets, but something has to be allowed.

    If for instance lets say you and all your friends hate engineer and it gets nerfed into the ground and not allowed to be good and an engineer main plays have 0% chance to win he deserves to be angry frankly because there has got to be a better way to balance whether overhauling the skills on weapons traits etc. Completely neutering entire classes is not an option, as you are only looking at it from your perspective. I also frankly think some use the excuse of not fun to fight against as an excuse to neuter either an entire elite or an entire class at the downside of the person who plays said class which is wrong.

    Fun is just too subjective of a matter.

    Here is my list of characters i got so far:

    Elementalist 80 with tempest:Talman nul
    Necromancer 80 with reaper:Zex vokar
    Mesmer level 80 no chrono yet:Klanga voosh.
    Level 80 Ranger with druid spec Jedkhan.

  • Tman.6349Tman.6349 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 17, 2020

    @Master Ketsu.4569 said:
    Diversity is a false god.

    The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

    X = 20 x1000
    Y = 5x10000
    Y>X
    50000>20000

    To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

    The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

    Wow, you really kicked those strawmen's butts!!! It's almost like Hyperbolies are OP and Strawman Fallacies are UP right now!! Plz nerf Hyperbolies and buff Strawman Fallacies Anet! :/
    Every bit of the best of times in the history of GW2's PvP were 'Perfectly Imbalanced', ie. a large variety of strong builds that could be used for effectiveness while still having at least one build that was a direct counter to keep them in line. This is balance through diversity and is objectively a better state of gameplay. Anet got us to the point we're at now by taking options away, not because they did a shave here and a buff over there...

  • Stallic.2397Stallic.2397 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 21, 2020

    Diversity should be encouraged and strongly focused on. That's the huge appeal of MMOs: choices from your class and race to your build and specialization.

    Diversity doesn't destroy balance, in fact, it's the opposite. As mentioned before, a chess game is as bland and as balanced as it gets. And yet, there's still ways get the unfair advantage.

    Diversity should take precedent over balance. Meta controls pvp, there isn't a chance to explore what you want to play. This idea of Rock, paper, scissors (RPS) deduces the Meta to simple gameplay. There's gonna be only one or two builds that do that role well.

    TLDR: the solution is to drastically reduce the separation between meta and everything else. There's always gonna be the best of the best. But if there are plenty of close seconds, then you create the "fun" environment. People just don't want to be hard countered

    Lastly : emphasize actual tactics. There's so many hard counters. For example, the strongest condi builds. If you can't clear 3-5 condi every 5 seconds. You're toast. If you can, your build is too strong. People are so used to instant results in this game. Why learn rotation, peeling, etc, when meta builds are all about hard countering and steam rolling the other team. Tanks in this game think just sitting on node is enough, when in other games, it's actually about reducing damage from a player (usually dps/support) so they stay alive. Making it so hard to kill the dps, it's not worth it. No, tanks just afk and Anet supports this cause hard countered builds are so prevalent.

    RPS is the opposite of diversity, which ultimately kills fun and balance.

  • Hirosama Nadasaki.6792Hirosama Nadasaki.6792 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 21, 2020

    Dunno where people get the idea that balance and build diversity are opposite things. The main reason build diversity rises or lowers is because of balancing.

    Build diversity is about allowing a large amount of different builds to be viable, that is entirely a balance issue. You can log into the game right now and make whatever wacky build your imagination can come up with, but current balance state will make most of those builds you just made irrelevant due to getting outshined by some much stronger meta build. To stop such powerful builds from overshadowing other custom builds is entirely a balance issue.

    There is no such thing as "focusing build diversity over balancing" when most of what Anet does is number changes. The only situation where balance and diversity go in opposite directions is when they remove abilities and traits for the sake of balancing, and they don't usually do that.