Should the difficulty level of skill rotation reflect in the amount of DPS? Or being melee/ranged? — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Should the difficulty level of skill rotation reflect in the amount of DPS? Or being melee/ranged?

Having been reading this discussion for awhile, there have been arguments stating that with more complex skill rotation one should be potentially be able to dish out more DPS than with a more simple rotation. Should this be the case really? We are talking about a MMO game with merely 10 skill buttons for most classes, which is very little compared to other MMOs, and this will lead to most classes having rather short rotations. Personally I think that since most of the classes have a tiny skill pool to begin with, this isn't really a valid argument since it doesn't touch majority of the jobs, and is only affecting couple niche specs.

Another thing people have been saying is that being as a melee class you should be able to deal more damage than being ranged. The main argument for this statement has been that playing ranged is safer than playing melee. Is it really though? Are all the mechanics around the bosses only happening next to it? Nothing for the ranged people to watch out? In the fights where that holds true, yes I can see melee should be able to do bit more if holding optimal melee uptime is abyssal compared to holding ranged uptime. Having battles where ranged people can just stay still and dps while melee specs have to do all mechanics just cause they need to be at melee range is just bad game design in my opinion. If this isn't the case though, and you can still stay next to the boss as much as the ranged person can stay at range while attacking it, then I don't think there is a problem.

<1

Comments

  • @Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:
    I can't help but think that this is all about veiled Thief and Ele complaints. However I digress:

    IMO the idea of making easy and hard rotations is silly. It is not an ideal feature of any game to spend your time fighting the interface to try to get your toon to do stuff well. Near maximum DPS against a stationary target should be an expectation of competent play through moderate effort, not an elusive reward for players to grind for days training to achieve. Aside from my wrists hurting because of special diseases, putting too much mental stress on class performance means that it is harder to see and react to enemy behavior. Skill should be about minutia, dealing with the unexpected, and dealing with the classes innate strengths and weaknesses, not whether you can keep track of all the resource management in a convoluted class mechanic.

    Problem is, this is an inevitability of the system. By nature of making things different, the system will end up with easier and harder rotations. The prospect of balancing giving harder rotations more damage has two ideas behind it. First, in PVP balance you'll want to balance for skill, so the more difficult maneuvers will need to have more damage to counter-balance their difficulty. Second, players work hard to learn a complicated rotation, and they expect hard work to be rewarded. It's a fair expectation, but that does not necessarily make it good. There is no necessary link between difficult rotations and DPS.

    There's a dozen other ways to draw the connections. The DPS can be balanced to frailty, or difficulty can be balanced to versatility, or the difficult rotations can have different benefits aside from their DPS output. You can even leave the difficult rotations up to personal flair. Second, balancing disparate skill rotations just leads to overt class favoritism. No class should be rendered impotent because its themes are simpler. Changing the themes to be more complicated to compensate is an equally bad idea, since simple themes can be a big attraction to the class. You might inadvertently cut out the playerbase by instituting a global high skill floor. This doesn't hold true for the opposite, though, since making it easier to do maximum DPS on hard rotation isn't going to squeeze out players.


    The melee/range divide, however, does make sense. Placement is a big thing in this game. Ranged weaponry has a wide space to choose their placement, but melee weaponry has a very narrow area.. Melee can be hit by everything, but ranged can only be hit by ranged. This is true for PVP and PVE. The relationship here isn't the difficulty of the rotation for reward, but risk vs. reward.

    Just an addendum to melee vs ranged, a further balance point as you touched on as well is frailty. Although ranged is by and large safer it can be counterbalanced by making ranged attacks from enemies deal more damage and thus a harsher punishment to messing up when playing ranged. Additionally, being ranged can put you outside of the area of effect for allied support. This is why stacking works so well and can actually improve survivability by taking all the hits and healing them with party support over trying to stay at range and avoid damage in the first place.

    Exploring Tyria since before the fall of Ascalon.

  • I think this is about choosing dps versus having more options.

    With a shorter rotation you have more possibilities to shine. You aren't as affected by mechanics as you can hop right back into your rotation. This ability to deal with a variety of situations should come at the cost of lower peak-performance. If there is a build that was designed for one specific encouter, it should always outperforme the default builds.
    But I guess the problem here is rather that difficult rotations outperform simpler ones on almost every encounter. But who should ANet balance for? Should they aim to have mostly equal benchmark numbers? Should they balance for the actual combat-results of the top raid guilds? Should they balance for the average raid guild instead? Should they balance for pugs? Balancing around the average raid player automatically makes the difficult rotations' benchmarks leave the simpler rotations' ones in the dust.

    As for melee vs ranged: As a ranged player you can play both ranged and melee. As a melee player you can only play melee. And yes, the ranged player should have to trade something in for this advantage.

    No skin should be exclusive to gem-store rng boxes.
    What really happened with mount skins

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Basically it ends up being a question about balancing risk and reward.

    Think of it this way - the more things there are that could be messed up in a specific gameplay (or rotation), the greater the risk of using it. It isn't necessarily always "risk" as in "getting downed" or "wiping", it's rather about its reliability. Greater reliability means more predictable, less chaotic results. When I say "greater risk" I mean the opposite of that. This risk can be caused by any different factors - mechanical difficulty (high APM) of the rotation, susceptibility to interrupts and general fragility, gameplay-specific quirks (like ele conjures or the hidden cooldowns on engi kits) or range limitations. They all affect the risk in the end, but the magnitude will vary from factor to factor and will often depend on context. For instance, being limited to melee range isn't very important on VG, but can severely hurt your dps if your group decides to stay mid and range Deimos.

    I think it is rather obvious greater risk needs to be balanced with greater reward. The risk reduces your "expected" performance. In the long run, something is bound to go awry, you can't get around that. If two builds performed exactly the same, the more reliable one would have an edge because of that - every time something gets messed up, it would pull ahead. We've seen that happen with condi Engi in the past. Despite it having highest potential on small targets, the overall "risk" of playing one was too high and the expected performance was too low to justify bringing or taking one. Which resulted in the build falling out of favor and being forgotten for months.

    There's also the subjective feeling of wasted effort. Trying your best playing a complex build and achieving similar or worse results to a simple one can be rather disheartening. Games should reward such effort, not indirectly tell you your efforts do not matter.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Yes, but very minimally.

    This creates different "high-end" and "pug" meta's and offers variable play. Which is great to avoid the game getting stale, providing alternatives which are "best" depending on situation and so forth. However, a lot more than "difficulty in rotation" needs to be taken into account.

    i.e. amount of CC, effectiveness depending on hitbox, access to range, mobility, blocks, invulns, group support, ...
    Also not /every/ meme build in the game can be balanced. That will never happen. But the more viable builds the merrier.

    Also who cares about DPS. DPS has millions of fairly decent alternatives. Even weaver is fine for clearing even if it isn't worth the effort at all. Time to gut supports; chrono is dull, druid is duller and warrior would be playable even if they straight up deleted banners from the game. Which by the way, I fully support.

  • Tails.9372Tails.9372 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 16, 2018

    @Frozey.8513 said:
    Should the difficulty level of skill rotation reflect in the amount of DPS?

    No, definitely not. The game should provide options for casual players to play more simple but effective builds in order for them not to become a burden for the group. "High difficulty rotations" should only be there for people who seek a challenge for themselves or are otherwise bored by the "simple stuff" but that's about it.

    @Frozey.8513 said:
    Or being melee/ranged?

    The fact that ranged has it easier is a common misconception, melee focused builds have generally more HP, toughness and dodges/mobility at their disposal. They also are far more likely to be attacked by the more basic stuff while ranged fighters usually have to deal with AoE / CC spam (e.g. the golem hero point in verdant brink). Close ranged fighters are also more likely to be affected by support skills from other players which usually also forces ranged builds into close range combat and most of the big endgame bosses focus on big room sweeping AoEs anyways. There's really no point in keeping the damage of ranged builds low just cause they're ranged.

  • ReaverKane.7598ReaverKane.7598 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Answering the title, because no one has time for walls of text:
    Yes and Yes.
    If you're melee you have a higher degree of risk (you'll get hit more), so higher reward is warranted.
    If your rotation is complex, you should be getting a better DPS output, otherwise, why do it at all?

  • Vagrant.7206Vagrant.7206 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Tails.9372 said:

    @Frozey.8513 said:
    Should the difficulty level of skill rotation reflect in the amount of DPS?

    No, definitely not. The game should provide options for casual players to play more simple but effective builds in order for them not to become a burden for the group. "High difficulty rotations" should only be there for people who seek a challenge for themselves or are otherwise bored by the "simple stuff" but that's about it.

    I used to play condi engi. I now play holosmith.

    I have very little reason to go back to playing condi engi other than nostalgia. Fighting the interface and keeping track of internal cooldowns for several minutes is not a "fun challenge."

    To answer the original question: Yes, but not by so much that they supplant the simpler rotations. More complex rotations should get rewarded, but not by more than 20-25% of the damage a simpler rotation is doing.

    The great god Lagki demands sacrifice!

  • Bish.8627Bish.8627 Member ✭✭✭

    Personal opinion no. I think all professions should be within a few thousand DPS of each other benchmark wise. I think more difficult rotations should be marginally higher, but rotations should be purely there for what the player finds more fun.

    As above, I played Holosmith since PoF and the rotations to me are so much more fun than standard engie, I have no reason to go back. If the Holo took a big nerf and cut a few k off the dps would I change? No, I find it fun.

    That being said I recently started playing condition mirage in PVE and I find that mega fun, might not be meta, but I plan to do content and full ascend that character now. I think they are about the same difficulty, Holo is a much higher DPS on benchmark, but again, I am having fun and to me that is what most counts.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The difficulty level of skill rotation should indeed be rewarded but for the health of the game it shouldn't be rewarded by more dps than simpler rotations. That is what I think.

    In other words, a complex rotation should provide roughly the same amount of damage but add to it more "extra" (support/CC/even defense) than simple rotation. This would open dps spot to any profession while support would eventually end up caped.

  • Illconceived Was Na.9781Illconceived Was Na.9781 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 16, 2018

    People imbue phrases like, "risk & reward" with too much meaning. There's no formula that says the best balance comes from giving Y more damage with X more complexity.

    Moreover, it's not ANet who invents these complex builds. The benchmark builds are literally the maximum in-game damage that can be done by the best players in the game under ideal conditions. These are people for whom the complexity is relatively meaningless, if it gets them 1% extra DPS.

    And even then, the problem isn't the benchmarks, it's that we treat them as critical to making choices. There's nothing in the game that requires damage classes to have top DPS; content can be swiftly and smooth cleared with 70-80% of benchmark & even less usually. I care more about actual damage than benchmark damage and there are plenty of not-meta builds that deal near-benchmark damage, with less complex rotations. (We've already seen adaptations to the recent power SB to simplify it, without much DPS loss.)

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Tails.9372Tails.9372 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vagrant.7206 said:
    I used to play condi engi. I now play holosmith.

    I have very little reason to go back to playing condi engi other than nostalgia. Fighting the interface and keeping track of internal cooldowns for several minutes is not a "fun challenge."

    For you, it's not hard to find people saying stuff like always spamming AA is to dull for them.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The problem is that the idea of a 'rotation' is the same as the 'meta'. They are player constructs aimed at playing the game in a very specific way to maximize damage output. With the most confidence, I am going to say that Anet cares zero about how much damage you do and so would have also zero interest in adopting the idea of a 'rotation' as a way to balance the damage being done. I don't even think that objectively, that could be accomplished in the first place.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Fat Disgrace.4275Fat Disgrace.4275 Member ✭✭✭✭

    why is this important though? isn't pve kinda easy mode? i mean sure you raids and fractals are not to be played lightly but after sometime you get to know the programmed AI and it becomes like reading a book, so why the fuss about silly pve dps numbers?

  • Tails.9372Tails.9372 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fat Disgrace.4275 said:
    why is this important though? isn't pve kinda easy mode?

    Yes and no, what you're doing is easy but you can still fail if there's a general lack of DPS thaks to how the scaling works in this game. For example I've done the Auric Basin meta on an almost empty map with just 4 people on west but I've also seen it fail with 30+.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Vagrant.7206 said:

    @Tails.9372 said:

    @Frozey.8513 said:
    Should the difficulty level of skill rotation reflect in the amount of DPS?

    No, definitely not. The game should provide options for casual players to play more simple but effective builds in order for them not to become a burden for the group. "High difficulty rotations" should only be there for people who seek a challenge for themselves or are otherwise bored by the "simple stuff" but that's about it.

    I used to play condi engi. I now play holosmith.

    I have very little reason to go back to playing condi engi other than nostalgia. Fighting the interface and keeping track of internal cooldowns for several minutes is not a "fun challenge."

    To answer the original question: Yes, but not by so much that they supplant the simpler rotations. More complex rotations should get rewarded, but not by more than 20-25% of the damage a simpler rotation is doing.

    20-25% is a huge difference. And it's about the right one IMO, for exactly the reasons that caused your switch to holo.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Fat Disgrace.4275 said:
    why is this important though? isn't pve kinda easy mode? i mean sure you raids and fractals are not to be played lightly but after sometime you get to know the programmed AI and it becomes like reading a book, so why the fuss about silly pve dps numbers?

    It's the same for PvP thought, after experiencing other professions you basically know their script. You know how a mesmer will engage you, what to expect when a thief will sneak attack you, how to control a necromancer, how to shut down an elementalist. You just need to grasp the foe's build and it's basically PvE easy mode.

  • Fat Disgrace.4275Fat Disgrace.4275 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Fat Disgrace.4275 said:
    why is this important though? isn't pve kinda easy mode? i mean sure you raids and fractals are not to be played lightly but after sometime you get to know the programmed AI and it becomes like reading a book, so why the fuss about silly pve dps numbers?

    It's the same for PvP thought, after experiencing other professions you basically know their script. You know how a mesmer will engage you, what to expect when a thief will sneak attack you, how to control a necromancer, how to shut down an elementalist. You just need to grasp the foe's build and it's basically PvE easy mode.

    What? No it isn't the same at all. The builds may be the same or conquest may be the same in rotation wise but people play differently and change executions/decisions on the fly.

  • TwiceDead.1963TwiceDead.1963 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 18, 2018

    This is about Ele's and Thieves ain't it?
    Ele's are still more desireable overall. Unlike thieves, they are desired in every gamemode, or at least they were. Thief has never been a desireable class for group play until now. Besides, Ele's are still far more versatile than a thief will ever be. It's just poor raid design that makes DPS the only thing that matters.

    I guess I'll entertain you by answering the actual question...

    Should a more complex rotation give you more damage?
    Depends on what's included in those rotation. As I already said, Ele's gain far more than just offensive skills when they swap elements, they get some fairly decent utilities as well, varying between leaps, auras, evades, and if they are played well they will always have a card to play. PvE wise this is useless since all that matters is DMG, but it makes a world of difference in PvP scenarios.

    Should ranged or melee affect DPS?
    Yes. Absolutely. Ranged characters have far more freedom when they engage or disengage and don't have to worry as much about positioning. Melee users have to weave in-between giant circles of death on the ground and will probably still eat a lot of them simply because of how abundant they are. Melee users at some point has to take a hit, ranged characters only take a hit if they are hit with ranged abilities. This is a matter of risk/reward.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TwiceDead.1963 said:
    Ele's are still more desireable overall.

    Statistics disagree with your statement.

  • TwiceDead.1963TwiceDead.1963 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 18, 2018

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @TwiceDead.1963 said:
    Ele's are still more desireable overall.

    Statistics disagree with your statement.

    Oh look it's Raidar, a part of PvE, one part of three available gamemodes. Meanwhile, Ele's are happy and dandy being accepted left and right in sPvP and WvW for multiple roles. On the other side, thieves receive all the blame for a loss in sPvP, and all the hate for daring to join a commanders squad in WvW. So yeah, that's still 2 outa 3, compared to thiefs 1. Overall, still more desirable.

    Just adapt, dude, no use being salty over this. Odds are really high that when the next balance patch rolls around, thief will be nerfed into the ground, so ride the meta, or wallow in self-pity until then.

  • Etheri.5406Etheri.5406 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TwiceDead.1963 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @TwiceDead.1963 said:
    Ele's are still more desireable overall.

    Statistics disagree with your statement.

    Oh look it's Raidar, a part of PvE, one part of three available gamemodes. Meanwhile, Ele's are happy and dandy being accepted left and right in sPvP and WvW for multiple roles. On the other side, thieves receive all the blame for a loss in sPvP, and all the hate for daring to join a commanders squad in WvW. So yeah, that's still 2 outa 3, compared to thiefs 1. Overall, still more desirable.

    Just adapt, dude, no use being salty over this. Odds are really high that when the next balance patch rolls around, thief will be nerfed into the ground, so ride the meta, or wallow in self-pity until then.

    Thief is more meta than weaver in PvP.
    Thief is more meta than weaver in small scale WvW.
    Weaver is currently meta in large scale WvW only because of the meteor bug - we'll re-evaluate after.

    I agree that he's biased towards weaver for raids. That said, your assessment isn't exactly accurate. Eles aren't in a great spot in PvP or WvW and they definitely aren't being accepted for multiple roles. They're accepted for... bugged meteor. Before the nerfs weaver was a situational class in large scale, while thief is meta in pvp and small scale wvw.

  • TwiceDead.1963TwiceDead.1963 Member ✭✭✭

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @TwiceDead.1963 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @TwiceDead.1963 said:
    Ele's are still more desireable overall.

    Statistics disagree with your statement.

    Oh look it's Raidar, a part of PvE, one part of three available gamemodes. Meanwhile, Ele's are happy and dandy being accepted left and right in sPvP and WvW for multiple roles. On the other side, thieves receive all the blame for a loss in sPvP, and all the hate for daring to join a commanders squad in WvW. So yeah, that's still 2 outa 3, compared to thiefs 1. Overall, still more desirable.

    Just adapt, dude, no use being salty over this. Odds are really high that when the next balance patch rolls around, thief will be nerfed into the ground, so ride the meta, or wallow in self-pity until then.

    Thief is more meta than weaver in PvP.
    Thief is more meta than weaver in small scale WvW.
    Weaver is currently meta in large scale WvW only because of the meteor bug - we'll re-evaluate after.

    I agree that he's biased towards weaver for raids. That said, your assessment isn't exactly accurate. Eles aren't in a great spot in PvP or WvW and they definitely aren't being accepted for multiple roles. They're accepted for... bugged meteor. Before the nerfs weaver was a situational class in large scale, while thief is meta in pvp and small scale wvw.

    Are we talking Weaver or Ele in general? Since the latter is what I'm on about.

    sPvP, Ele's are still better at fighting on point, which is primarily what matters in sPvP. Thieves really can't, besides they are delegated to decap duty, which is basically like playing with one less player on your team until they decide to +1. Holding their own? Anet doesn't want them to do that.

    Don't get me wrong, Thieves when played really well can be a nightmare, but this is kitten RARE. You're either really good with thief, or you outright suck. Guess which side the majority is at.

    Really? I've seen more Ele's running around in small-scale the past week. Not weavers though, Tempest mostly. Maybe I don't see thieves because they're in the trend of being perma-stealthed lately.

    Weaver has never been situational in large-scale. The amount of hard-hitting AoE's you spew around you is asinine with Staff, and the ease you down and kill downed opponents from relative safety is a luxury not shared by many other classes. I play Weaver Ele's in WvW large-scale, and I always find something useful to do for any situation that is combat oriented. Only instance you're useless would be when you get caught on your own away from the commander fighting someone who's stronger in 1v1 fights, or doing something you obviously shouldn't be doing.

  • eldain stenlund.4306eldain stenlund.4306 Member ✭✭
    edited July 19, 2018

    It is very very easy to balance a game... even if it has PvE and PvP.... Ranged and Melee....4 buttons or 10 buttons.

    But, what most seem to miss, is that the most important objective to have when designing a game.
    Is to make a game that is FUN to play., and which gives players many options to choose from.

    Example: (note: the warrior does NOT work like this in the game currently, and never has, but they should!!!)
    Lets take Warrior...
    Warrior specc X is more direct dmg, and not dots.... dps at end is 35k dps. (just a number).
    Warrior specc Z is more dot dmg and less direct.... dps at end is 35k dps.
    Warrior specc melee, is direct dmg, and no dots and dps is 35 k.
    Warrior specc melee, is dots dmg, and dps is 35 k.
    Warrior specc ranged rifle is direct dmg and no dots and dps is 35 k.
    Warrior specc ranged rifle is dots dmg, and dps is 35 k.
    And the same SHOULD go for all classes..... It should not matter if you specc ranged or melee or direct dmg or dots... the end result should be the same.

    Typically, it should not differ in dps if you play with 4 buttons or 10 buttons...(as that should just be a playstyle).
    (IF there is a difference in dps in 4 buttons vs 10, then you create imbalance, and you FORCE players in a special direction
    "kitten off, you need specc X for raiding or PvP with your class".... something that should NEVER be allowed).

    The more options there is to choose from, the longer the game will live, as it gives the players many new ways to play.
    "iam bored of playing warrior GS.... lets change to Ranged rifle........ or hammer... or sword/sword... or Mace/mace.. or Axe/axe".
    If it does not matter which weapon is picked, then you have a happy warrrior player base, as they can then change around for FUN and still yield same result at end.

    Ranged or Melee.. or Rotations..... should not matter at all if you design the game correct.

    Melee classes need a gap closer to get into melee...
    Ranged need a disengage to escape the melee...

    If these are fulfilled, then they should deal the same dps at the end.... since a player skills should be the thing that change the outcome NOT a players class.
    And it should not matter either if you have 4 buttons or 10 buttons....the dps at end should still be the same... (inside the 5% rule).

    5% rule = There should be a maximum 5% difference in dps at end between classes... NOT MORE!!!. and preferably less.
    (there should not be ANY difference INSIDE a class, well, unless if you go from full dps to full support obviously.... but dps is dps is dps).

    Also something many seem to miss is that you need to have PvE and PvP separate screens/blankets instances.
    You deal X million dps in PvE.... its fine, its pve.
    You deal Z thousand dps in PvP...... as they are 2 different instances, and should have different % screens on their skills.
    If skill 2 and 4 is OP in PvP, but UP in PvE.... just fine tune them for each screen instance.
    The screens i mention gives maximum control and balance capability.

    You should NEVER have PvP rule over PvE design..... or PvE rule over PvP design.... NEVER.
    Always keep them separate.
    And if you do not have a screen for each and separate them, Then you can NEVER EVER balance the game.

    Since it is Arenanet, iam guessing they do not have anything of what i have mentioned sadly.
    Which is why the game is limited in options and have stupid meta and FotM.

    Balancing a game is very very easy, if you have at least a half working brain.

    / Disappointed player

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 19, 2018

    @eldain stenlund.4306 said:
    It is very very easy to balance a game... even if it has PvE and PvP.... Ranged and Melee....4 buttons or 10 buttons.

    But, what most seem to miss, is that the most important objective to have when designing a game.
    Is to make a game that is FUN to play., and which gives players many options to choose from.

    Example: (note: the warrior does NOT work like this in the game currently, and never has, but they should!!!)
    Lets take Warrior...
    Warrior specc X is more direct dmg, and not dots.... dps at end is 35k dps. (just a number).
    Warrior specc Z is more dot dmg and less direct.... dps at end is 35k dps.
    Warrior specc melee, is direct dmg, and no dots and dps is 35 k.
    Warrior specc melee, is dots dmg, and dps is 35 k.
    Warrior specc ranged rifle is direct dmg and no dots and dps is 35 k.
    Warrior specc ranged rifle is dots dmg, and dps is 35 k.
    And the same SHOULD go for all classes..... It should not matter if you specc ranged or melee or direct dmg or dots... the end result should be the same.

    Typically, it should not differ in dps if you play with 4 buttons or 10 buttons...(as that should just be a playstyle).
    (IF there is a difference in dps in 4 buttons vs 10, then you create imbalance, and you FORCE players in a special direction
    "kitten off, you need specc X for raiding or PvP with your class".... something that should NEVER be allowed).

    The more options there is to choose from, the longer the game will live, as it gives the players many new ways to play.
    "iam bored of playing warrior GS.... lets change to Ranged rifle........ or hammer... or sword/sword... or Mace/mace.. or Axe/axe".
    If it does not matter which weapon is picked, then you have a happy warrrior player base, as they can then change around for FUN and still yield same result at end.

    Ranged or Melee.. or Rotations..... should not matter at all if you design the game correct.

    Melee classes need a gap closer to get into melee...
    Ranged need a disengage to escape the melee...

    If these are fulfilled, then they should deal the same dps at the end.... since a player skills should be the thing that change the outcome NOT a players class.
    And it should not matter either if you have 4 buttons or 10 buttons....the dps at end should still be the same... (inside the 5% rule).

    But if you have easy builds and complex builds then it's not the player skill that changes the outcome, it's the picked class. And it turns out easy builds are objectively superior to complex ones, because they rely on less factors - both internal and external - and they produce higher damage output more consistently. As evidenced by what happened to condi engi back when it was top dps on small, but by such a small margin that nobody actually wanted to play one or with one.

    Balance isn't as easy as you think.

  • @Feanor.2358 said:
    But if you have easy builds and complex builds then it's not the player skill that changes the outcome, it's the picked class. And it turns out easy builds are objectively superior to complex ones, because they rely on less factors - both internal and external - and they produce higher damage output more consistently. As evidenced by what happened to condi engi back when it was top dps on small, but by such a small margin that nobody actually wanted to play one or with one.

    Balance isn't as easy as you think.

    Balance IS easy....And more easy than you think.
    Example:
    Player class Ranged Necromancer deal 500 dmg Dot special on skill 1.... 2...3...4.
    Player class Warrior deal 500 dmg direct special on skill 1...2...3...4
    The only difference is that they do it in different ways.... But the numbers are still the same in the end..... hence, balanced.
    (the option is to the players, do they want to play ranged or melee, dots or dd).

    Playing with more or less buttons, should be in the players hands as an option..... NOT the developers as something they FORCE.
    The players, should have the choice and option to play with 4 buttons or 10 buttons or 100 buttons.
    But the end result, should not change.

    saying 4 buttons in GW2 is kinda stupid, since its basic core need 9.....

    4 weapon skills and 4 utility cd skills + F1. = 9 buttons. <--- ONE weapon type use only... Not swapping weapons.

    If you swap weapons, you then have 13 skills to keep track on.
    Which should be more than enough for everyone.

    BUT, i know there are some nutheads that just want to have many buttons to press all the time.
    Let them then... but it should not benefit them anything, as it will only be their choice to have more buttons to press.

    9 buttons as basic.
    and 13 with weapon swap.
    THIS should be the CORE of every class.
    (and every class should have weapon swap option to be able to balance).

    But in GW2 this is not the case.
    Some classes can get access to far more buttons like Engineers and their kits..... but Warriors can NOT, so should you punish the Warrior then ???.
    Obviously you should NOT punish a class over another class....If you do, you are stupid.
    The Engineer class should be balanced in a special way instead.... (you can not kitten up 8 other classes because of one).

    Engineers have access to kits.... bombs, turrets, flamethrower, etc etc.
    Kits should be considered as a weapon swap, and balanced after such.
    Since when you activate EX: flamethrower you remove your rifle,mace or what ever weapon, and instead get 4 new button skills.... hence "weapon swap".

    ALL classes need also to have access to each debuff in some way....bleed, vulnerability, poison, etc etc...(they only do it differently, speccs/weapons).
    If you have classes that can NOT apply a debuff that is needed, then it is a failed design... and can never be balanced correctly.
    "we need debuff X, you are the wrong class for our group". <-- Should NEVER be allowed to happen.

    So you see, balance is not that hard... if you just look at the whole picture while you do it.

    CLASSES in a game.... is just a name of telling how they inflict their damage.
    MAGE class. = Caster, Magician, Merlin, Wizard....uses spells, and ranged mainly.
    WARRIOR class = Fighter, Lancelot, Conan, Uses weapons of all sort, Can be strong at melee and ranged depending on specialization.

    MAGE uses Fireball, dmg 500. (mitigated by Magic resist)
    WARRIOR uses Slash, dmg 500. (mitigated by armors).

    After you have such core down, then you can do pretty much anything with it.... Have different spells do different things... weapons do different things, and yet keep it balanced at the end as dmg does not truly change, only the way it is inflicted.... with: Melee DD, Ranged DD, Melee dots, Ranged Dots.
    Classes only show fancy ways HOW they inflict these damages.

    Mages uses flashy light effects and cool hand gestures.
    Warriors uses flashy movements and spins and slashes.

    It is truly this simple...nothing complicated at all.

  • @eldain stenlund.4306 said:
    Example: (note: the warrior does NOT work like this in the game currently, and never has, but they should!!!)
    Lets take Warrior...
    Warrior specc X is more direct dmg, and not dots.... dps at end is 35k dps. (just a number).
    Warrior specc Z is more dot dmg and less direct.... dps at end is 35k dps.
    Warrior specc melee, is direct dmg, and no dots and dps is 35 k.
    Warrior specc melee, is dots dmg, and dps is 35 k.
    Warrior specc ranged rifle is direct dmg and no dots and dps is 35 k.
    Warrior specc ranged rifle is dots dmg, and dps is 35 k.
    And the same SHOULD go for all classes..... It should not matter if you specc ranged or melee or direct dmg or dots... the end result should be the same.

    If condition damage has the same dps as direct damage, why should anyone choose condition damage and wait for conditions to tick? Direct damage would be objectively better since it applies all its damage at the moment you hit your enemy and you don't have to wait for it to take effect. Condition damage has a ramp-up time, so at equal dps numbers direct damage builds will always kill faster.

    If ranged builds have the same dps as melee builds, why should anyone choose a melee build? You can stand in melee distance with your ranged build and still do full dps, but can you do the same with your melee build at ranged distance? Using a ranged build you have a huge advantage when it comes to positioning.

    What you're supposing would lead to a direct damage ranged only meta.

    No skin should be exclusive to gem-store rng boxes.
    What really happened with mount skins

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @eldain stenlund.4306 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    But if you have easy builds and complex builds then it's not the player skill that changes the outcome, it's the picked class. And it turns out easy builds are objectively superior to complex ones, because they rely on less factors - both internal and external - and they produce higher damage output more consistently. As evidenced by what happened to condi engi back when it was top dps on small, but by such a small margin that nobody actually wanted to play one or with one.

    Balance isn't as easy as you think.

    Balance IS easy....And more easy than you think.
    Example:
    Player class Ranged Necromancer deal 500 dmg Dot special on skill 1.... 2...3...4.
    Player class Warrior deal 500 dmg direct special on skill 1...2...3...4
    The only difference is that they do it in different ways.... But the numbers are still the same in the end..... hence, balanced.

    Yeah, sure, if you make carbon copies of skill then you can balance it easily. But it will end up bland and uninteresting. There's a reason why skills are different in virtually every game.

  • ZeftheWicked.3076ZeftheWicked.3076 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I think neither. It should reflect ability to perform versatile tasks. For example strong and simple dps builds should be able to do dps but little more. While strong but complex rotation builds for example could share barriers, do some off-healing, do some fire field might blasting, be able to sneak in stealth or other short panic button defense that can be activated by changing the rotation etc.

  • vesica tempestas.1563vesica tempestas.1563 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 19, 2018

    @ZeftheWicked.3076 said:
    I think neither. It should reflect ability to perform versatile tasks. For example strong and simple dps builds should be able to do dps but little more. While strong but complex rotation builds for example could share barriers, do some off-healing, do some fire field might blasting, be able to sneak in stealth or other short panic button defense that can be activated by changing the rotation etc.

    I think this is nearer the mark for me. As with most raid oriented based thinking everything equates to rotation and dps, but outside of raid optimised groups other factors like defenses, cc, ability to pressure, ability to disengage, heal , burst etc all come into play, so the question for a profession is not whether a rotation is balanced with another rotation based on dps (it is relevant for raids and meter wars) its does the overall set of skills boons/offenses match up over time to other classes for a given context such as pve, open world pve, wvcw and offer engaging gameplay.

    This is balance, the classic paper/stone/scissors, not just scissors in isolation.

    edit : re difficulties, this is just a facet of gameplay, the difficulty if done right is the reward itself.

    "Any path that narrows future possibilities may become a lethal trap. Humans do not thread their way through a maze; they scan a vast horizon filled with unique opportunities." - The Spacing Guild Handbook.

    Beware the meta!

  • @Feanor.2358 said:
    Yeah, sure, if you make carbon copies of skill then you can balance it easily. But it will end up bland and uninteresting. There's a reason why skills are different in virtually every game.

    I was talking basic core design....Which you first need to establish, before doing something else with it.

    The suggestion you imply is to have everything random.....
    So, just toss a dice for each class to make it "interesting".

    class X gets High dice roll to skill settings....Every still will do 100 % more dmg.
    class Z gets low dice roll to skill settings. every skill will do 20% dmg.
    Well too bad for Class Z, its always now then going to be completely pointless, as class X gets the high roll and wins the dmg settings on skills.
    But do not worry class Z, next month we make a new dice roll.......

    Iam going to simplify it so you understand.
    Basics first must be determined.
    So, you want your classes to have a maximum of 40 k dps.
    ok, next is... how many buttons are going to be used.
    next is to determine rotation, and how many buttons you have to use.
    next is to determine values on these buttons.... how much dmg will they give.
    next is to determine cd on these skills to justify their dps.
    etc etc.
    If you have these basics, then you can mod the values and such how ever you want....as long as it is in the 40 k dps limit. (or what ever limit you want).

    As i said.
    It is not hard.
    you just have to see the whole picture while you do it.

  • Luindu.2418Luindu.2418 Member ✭✭

    @eldain stenlund.4306 I think @Feanor.2358 is talking about if anet do the "all class same dps", then next should be "all class same healing", then "base health and armor", then "stealth"....
    At the end, you have carbon copies (with diffenet icons)

  • @BunjiKugashira.9754 said:
    If condition damage has the same dps as direct damage, why should anyone choose condition damage and wait for conditions to tick? Direct damage would be objectively better since it applies all its damage at the moment you hit your enemy and you don't have to wait for it to take effect. Condition damage has a ramp-up time, so at equal dps numbers direct damage builds will always kill faster.

    If ranged builds have the same dps as melee builds, why should anyone choose a melee build? You can stand in melee distance with your ranged build and still do full dps, but can you do the same with your melee build at ranged distance? Using a ranged build you have a huge advantage when it comes to positioning.

    What you're supposing would lead to a direct damage ranged only meta.

    You are not looking at the whole picture.
    You first need a common core established, once that is done, you can change around how much you want, as long as the end dps is the same. (max 5% differ)
    DD and Dots have different pro and con.
    same with range vs melee.

    Dots strongest pro is that it can put pressure on many objects at the same time.
    DD strongest pro is that it can kill faster, but can only focus on one at time.

    ranged vs melee.
    Melee can LoS ranged, (sure, ranged can do the same, but why, they want to keep shooting...
    Melee have gap closers and snares.
    Ranged has disengage.
    The one that can bait out and play better will win....no matter ranged or melee..... dot or dd.

    Playing ranged or melee, should be a playstyle choice....not a "i win button" for either side.

  • Anchoku.8142Anchoku.8142 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Dps should be rewarded for increased skill and intellect so intellectually difficult "rotations" should have higher dps.

    However, this is also what I believe:

    • Mechanically complex rotations do nothing but distract players from working as a team and responding to changing dynamics so rotations should have diminishing returns on complexity so players can focus on doing what is appropriate for the situation and not worry about cratering dps by interrupting a long sequence.
    • There should be more value on coordinating with team members than there is right now. I would like to see some partial integration of voice chat in GW2 to encourage this.
    • Combinations do not do enough. They should have stronger effects but be trickier to land and be split between PvE and competitive play so the reward for skill is higher and failure is more significant, too.
  • ArthurDent.9538ArthurDent.9538 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 20, 2018

    @TwiceDead.1963 said:

    @Etheri.5406 said:

    @TwiceDead.1963 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @TwiceDead.1963 said:
    Ele's are still more desireable overall.

    Statistics disagree with your statement.

    Oh look it's Raidar, a part of PvE, one part of three available gamemodes. Meanwhile, Ele's are happy and dandy being accepted left and right in sPvP and WvW for multiple roles. On the other side, thieves receive all the blame for a loss in sPvP, and all the hate for daring to join a commanders squad in WvW. So yeah, that's still 2 outa 3, compared to thiefs 1. Overall, still more desirable.

    Just adapt, dude, no use being salty over this. Odds are really high that when the next balance patch rolls around, thief will be nerfed into the ground, so ride the meta, or wallow in self-pity until then.

    Thief is more meta than weaver in PvP.
    Thief is more meta than weaver in small scale WvW.
    Weaver is currently meta in large scale WvW only because of the meteor bug - we'll re-evaluate after.

    I agree that he's biased towards weaver for raids. That said, your assessment isn't exactly accurate. Eles aren't in a great spot in PvP or WvW and they definitely aren't being accepted for multiple roles. They're accepted for... bugged meteor. Before the nerfs weaver was a situational class in large scale, while thief is meta in pvp and small scale wvw.

    Are we talking Weaver or Ele in general? Since the latter is what I'm on about.

    sPvP, Ele's are still better at fighting on point, which is primarily what matters in sPvP. Thieves really can't, besides they are delegated to decap duty, which is basically like playing with one less player on your team until they decide to +1. Holding their own? Anet doesn't want them to do that.

    Don't get me wrong, Thieves when played really well can be a nightmare, but this is kitten RARE. You're either really good with thief, or you outright suck. Guess which side the majority is at.

    Really? I've seen more Ele's running around in small-scale the past week. Not weavers though, Tempest mostly. Maybe I don't see thieves because they're in the trend of being perma-stealthed lately.

    Weaver has never been situational in large-scale. The amount of hard-hitting AoE's you spew around you is asinine with Staff, and the ease you down and kill downed opponents from relative safety is a luxury not shared by many other classes. I play Weaver Ele's in WvW large-scale, and I always find something useful to do for any situation that is combat oriented. Only instance you're useless would be when you get caught on your own away from the commander fighting someone who's stronger in 1v1 fights, or doing something you obviously shouldn't be doing.

    It doesn't matter if they mean weaver or ele in general, the whole notion that ele is better than thief in pvp is absurd and while technically just an opinion is pretty much a wrong opinion. Ele has been battling it out with previously rev and now perhaps ranger as the worst pvp class in the game ever since pof hit. Just watch any of the monthly AT or UGO streams and you will see tons of thieves on many of the top teams with finals frequently having thieves on both teams (double thief has even made it to the final at least once). Meanwhile ele is extremely rare in the higher tier tournaments and has not been used by the winning team of any major tournament since PoF. The same can be applied to ranked solo q as thieves are far more common in platinum/legend, at least from my personal experience as someone who has floated between top 10 and top 50 most of this season.

    Also you are seeing more tempests in small scale than thieves the kitten? I guess if by small scale you mean groups of 4-10 tempest is ok but for solo roaming it is one of the worst 1v1 specs in the game having almost no winning winning matchups at equal skill and meh escape options to not get steamrolled by larger groups.

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭

    The difficulty level of a rotation (or perceived difficulty) has no impact on damage output. It never did and never will.

    Range is a different story. The ideas is the further out you are the less likely for you to be attacked and thus deal less damage. It does not always hold true, not always conceptually correct.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @otto.5684 said:
    The difficulty level of a rotation (or perceived difficulty) has no impact on damage output. It never did and never will.

    Wrong. Condi Engi just got buffed with that very rationale:

    Core engineer gameplay has had a complex condition-damage rotation for a long time, which paid off with solid damage output. That has fallen off in part due to condition damage tweaks over time and other condition builds eclipsing it by nature of their simplicity. We're adding damage to some core skills, which we hope will entice engineers to take another look at them.

    Source.

  • @eldain stenlund.4306 said:

    @BunjiKugashira.9754 said:
    If condition damage has the same dps as direct damage, why should anyone choose condition damage and wait for conditions to tick? Direct damage would be objectively better since it applies all its damage at the moment you hit your enemy and you don't have to wait for it to take effect. Condition damage has a ramp-up time, so at equal dps numbers direct damage builds will always kill faster.

    If ranged builds have the same dps as melee builds, why should anyone choose a melee build? You can stand in melee distance with your ranged build and still do full dps, but can you do the same with your melee build at ranged distance? Using a ranged build you have a huge advantage when it comes to positioning.

    What you're supposing would lead to a direct damage ranged only meta.

    You are not looking at the whole picture.
    You first need a common core established, once that is done, you can change around how much you want, as long as the end dps is the same. (max 5% differ)
    DD and Dots have different pro and con.
    same with range vs melee.

    Dots strongest pro is that it can put pressure on many objects at the same time.
    DD strongest pro is that it can kill faster, but can only focus on one at time.

    ranged vs melee.
    Melee can LoS ranged, (sure, ranged can do the same, but why, they want to keep shooting...
    Melee have gap closers and snares.
    Ranged has disengage.
    The one that can bait out and play better will win....no matter ranged or melee..... dot or dd.

    Playing ranged or melee, should be a playstyle choice....not a "i win button" for either side.

    Hitting many targets vs hitting only one is AoE vs Single Target damage. Condi vs Direct is something different. Condi thief for example is strongest on a single target while direct damage ele uses 100% AoE spells. Dots ONLY advantage over direct damage is its higher potential dps. Mobs dying before the dps ramps up or (in PvP environments) cleanses drastically cut this potential dps down.

    As for melee vs ranged, LoSing a target is already part of the combat activities. During this time you deal 0 damage. During a disengage to complete a mechanic or dodge an otherwise fatal attack, the melee fighter again deals 0 damage while the ranged fighter can continue to attack. If the dps of melee and ranged fighters on the golem was the same, then ranged fighters would always outperform melee fighters in a real combat situation.

    No skin should be exclusive to gem-store rng boxes.
    What really happened with mount skins

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @BunjiKugashira.9754 said:
    As for melee vs ranged, LoSing a target is already part of the combat activities. During this time you deal 0 damage. During a disengage to complete a mechanic or dodge an otherwise fatal attack, the melee fighter again deals 0 damage while the ranged fighter can continue to attack. If the dps of melee and ranged fighters on the golem was the same, then ranged fighters would always outperform melee fighters in a real combat situation.

    It's complicated. In a real (pvp) combat situation it's never only about damage output. Both sides usually can have enough damage output to spike the opponent, but they also have counters to these. These are much more important, as they make the fight more fun and engaging than melees trying to charge head-on while ranged kiting them and wearing them down.

    In PvE none of these really matter. Yeah, you can range the boss, but you don't want to. All the heals and all the buffs are on the boss. So no matter what, you lose damage by ranging. It doesn't matter if you lose all of it or just the majority - you still want to minimize your ranging time. It doesn't matter who has the better active defences, too, for the same reason. You don't want to use these, nor your heals, when dpsing. That's for the supports to take care of. The only thing that you can contribute aside from dps is some form of group support which doesn't interfere with your dps output (e.g. Firebrand applying Aegis because activating the heal mantra has no casting time).

  • @BunjiKugashira.9754 said:
    Hitting many targets vs hitting only one is AoE vs Single Target damage. Condi vs Direct is something different. Condi thief for example is strongest on a single target while direct damage ele uses 100% AoE spells. Dots ONLY advantage over direct damage is its higher potential dps. Mobs dying before the dps ramps up or (in PvP environments) cleanses drastically cut this potential dps down.

    As for melee vs ranged, LoSing a target is already part of the combat activities. During this time you deal 0 damage. During a disengage to complete a mechanic or dodge an otherwise fatal attack, the melee fighter again deals 0 damage while the ranged fighter can continue to attack. If the dps of melee and ranged fighters on the golem was the same, then ranged fighters would always outperform melee fighters in a real combat situation.

    Wow, amazing.
    Humans truly are stupid on this planet.

    I KNOW there is a difference in Ranged / Melee..... DD / Dots.
    But that does not matter in the end if you use your head.

    Let me ask you a simple question.
    How do you build a house?
    Do you start with the roof ??.. or the walls ?? or the foundation??.

    IF the foundation is imbalanced when you build your house, the house will never ever be good, and it will possibly even be dangerous to live in due to imbalanced foundation.
    You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation.... before you start building walls and roofs.
    IF you have a Perfect solid foundation, then you can create what ever wall and roof you want... almost no limits.

    Do you get the picture?
    The foundation is the basic core needed.... 13 buttons 40 k dps.
    The walls and roofs are the different classes and skills.

    A house does not need to be a square or rectangle... it can be what ever shape you want, as long as you base if of the foundation.

    Just google funny designed / weird houses, and you will see houses with PERFECT foundations, but very weird walls and roofs...and STILL perfectly safe to live in.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @eldain stenlund.4306 said:
    You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

    No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be balanced. It is to be fun.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @eldain stenlund.4306 said:
    You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

    No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be balanced. It is to be fun.

    Except that no game is fun when some are more "balanced" than other. If some have fun in complexity, fine. But if some want to have fun in simplicity, they shouldn't end up being crippled due to their choice and have equal chance to play the content.

    If you find your fun in complexity, good grief. However, don't use "fun" as as a metric to justify more reward for complex builds. A perfect balance would garantee all professions fairness in what they do. The only difference would be the gameplay. If you like complexe gameplay you just go toward complexe builds and if you don't like complexe gameplay you hop onto simple build. But in the end the result would be the same: same enjoyement (fun), same efficiency in game.

    Obviously, balance wouldn't favor complexe gameplay, however, it would allow more player to enjoy the game and thus have "fun". Because if to play part of the game you have to use something that you find not fun, you don't enjoy the game. Playing difficult rotation shouldn't involve performances, it should be a choice on it's own without consequences on the sheer result.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @eldain stenlund.4306 said:
    You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

    No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be balanced. It is to be fun.

    Except that no game is fun when some are more "balanced" than other. If some have fun in complexity, fine. But if some want to have fun in simplicity, they shouldn't end up being crippled due to their choice and have equal chance to play the content.

    However, this just ends in crippling the complex builds and people who prefer to play those. You're not solving the issue, you're only moving it.

  • Raizel.8175Raizel.8175 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Yes and Yes, but only by a margin of 10-15%, else it will lead to simpler alternatives being excluded.

  • Anchoku.8142Anchoku.8142 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @eldain stenlund.4306 said:
    You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

    No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be balanced. It is to be fun.

    Except that no game is fun when some are more "balanced" than other. If some have fun in complexity, fine. But if some want to have fun in simplicity, they shouldn't end up being crippled due to their choice and have equal chance to play the content.

    However, this just ends in crippling the complex builds and people who prefer to play those. You're not solving the issue, you're only moving it.

    Memorizing and repeating a very long sequence for the absolute maximum dps is not the same thing as playing intelligently. An intelligent player will respond to boss mechanics, boss and group movements, and party needs, as appropriate despite the loss of dps from a broken sequence. Because of that, rotations should not be overly long so they are less of a burden to interrupt. A very long and complex rotation is a distraction, not something to be proud of.

    Rotations are also just one way to demonstrate skill. Consider Deadeye. High dps on an auto attack may seem unfairly easy but the Deadeye must maintain position behind the boss to avoid a large dps loss while staying close enough to the stack of players to keep all buffs up. The Deadeye must also trust the rest of the team will not forget about the lone player's health, too.

    Epidemic needed needing because it was never intended to damage its target but smart players learned to coordinate with each other to "bounce" the conditions off an add mob back to the original. This was not a "complex rotation" but required arguably more intelligence and teamwork than a lone player cranking through a sequence of keys.

    Mechanical complexity is not as awesome a profession trait as people think. What if some other player's chill field comes up when you meant to blast a fire field? Do you delay, switch skills, or keep going despite the dps loss? Super-long rotations are fine when you play alone against a training golem.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Anchoku.8142 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @eldain stenlund.4306 said:
    You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

    No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be balanced. It is to be fun.

    Except that no game is fun when some are more "balanced" than other. If some have fun in complexity, fine. But if some want to have fun in simplicity, they shouldn't end up being crippled due to their choice and have equal chance to play the content.

    However, this just ends in crippling the complex builds and people who prefer to play those. You're not solving the issue, you're only moving it.

    Memorizing and repeating a very long sequence for the absolute maximum dps is not the same thing as playing intelligently. An intelligent player will respond to boss mechanics, boss and group movements, and party needs, as appropriate despite the loss of dps from a broken sequence. Because of that, rotations should not be overly long so they are less of a burden to interrupt. A very long and complex rotation is a distraction, not something to be proud of.

    Much fun pressing 2 buttons to win?

  • eldain stenlund.4306eldain stenlund.4306 Member ✭✭
    edited July 20, 2018

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be balanced. It is to be fun.

    Yes, FUN is the most important aspect when you create a game.....if not, none will play it.
    BUT, you have to have balance to keep it fun..... and in MMO settings balance is life and death.....with no balance the game will die as it will NOT be fun to play.

    Just to give you a very very clear picture of how stupid your reasoning is.
    Imagine yourself in football gear...... but you are thrown into a full contact hockey setting.
    That is not very balanced... is it...... But that is how imbalanced the class system is in GW2 in its current state.
    Sure, it would be "FUN" to watch from the side, or to be the one of the hockey players knocking the kitten out of you..... but not fun for you, the football player....would it.

    BALANCE is the KEY to FUN in mmo settings.

    I am not all critical about GW2....i just seriously hate the class imbalance, as such imbalance does not have to exist.
    Some things GW2 do great....Story is fun and interesting, graphics are different and good contrast to others, WvW is pretty decent, needs fixing but good start... etc etc.
    But, that does not matter, if the class balanced is messed up...... as you will then have a stupid pointless football player against a team of heavy hockey players.

    Let me make it crystal clear:
    If you have a diamond with perfect cuts, it will not be valuable if it has a big crack, and risk falling apart any second.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 20, 2018

    @eldain stenlund.4306 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:
    No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be balanced. It is to be fun.

    Yes, FUN is the most important aspect when you create a game.....if not, none will play it.
    BUT, you have to have balance to keep it fun..... and in MMO settings balance is life and death.....with no balance the game will die as it will NOT be fun to play.

    Just to give you a very very clear picture of how stupid your reasoning is.
    Imagine yourself in football gear...... but you are thrown into a full contact hockey setting.
    That is not very balanced... is it...... But that is how imbalanced the class system is in GW2 in its current state.
    Sure, it would be "FUN" to watch from the side, or to be the one of the hockey players knocking the kitten out of you..... but not fun for you, the football player....would it.

    BALANCE is the KEY to FUN in mmo settings.

    I am not all critical about GW2....i just seriously hate the class imbalance, as such imbalance does not have to exist.
    Some things GW2 do great....Story is fun and interesting, graphics are different and good contrast to others, WvW is pretty decent, needs fixing but good start... etc etc.
    But, that does not matter, if the class balanced is messed up...... as you will then have a stupid pointless football player against a team of heavy hockey players.

    Let me make it crystal clear:
    If you have a diamond with perfect cuts, it will not be valuable if it has a big crack, and risk falling apart any second.

    Let me make it crystal clear:
    You can't have a perfect balance, ever, if you want your game to be diverse. Skills have to be different, because otherwise they end up boring. Which isn't fun. Being different means some will be better in specific scenarios than others. You'll never have perfect balance, and you don't need it. You only need a reasonable approximation.

  • @Feanor.2358 said:
    Let me make it crystal clear:
    You can't have a perfect balance, ever, if you want your game to be diverse. Skills have to be different, because otherwise they end up boring. Which isn't fun. Being different means some will be better in specific scenarios than others. You'll never have perfect balance, and you don't need it. You only need a reasonable approximation.

    =D
    If you read any of my previous... you know about the 5% rule.
    5% rule is what i can accept in MMO settings made by others...... myself i am a perfectionist when ever i do anything.... its perfect, or not at all.
    So if i was in charge and in full control over the design, i can most likely even cut down that 5% even lower as i would not accept anything else....but that is me.

    There is how ever far more than 5% difference among the classes in GW2.... hence, it is imbalanced.
    And in the end, it is not that fun if you are the football player because of it, and all you can do is hope, that the designers someday (unlikely) balance the game as whole and not just the few classes they play themselves.

    But, great to see you understand some basics....you almost restore my hope on humans. =D

    Did you read Arenanet answer on the meteor mess they made??..... another proof they are incompetent....meteor was 60% above intentions!!!!!... kitten hell.
    "we missed the window for hotfix. it will instead be on the next update"...... just lol....
    Such critical mess, and they do not instant fix it.......
    What they SHOULD DO..... edit values on meteor, test it indoors a few hours, when that is done, release and force people to update right away, and compensate for their own stupidity by giving players something and apologies.
    (and next time, test things before)......

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @eldain stenlund.4306 said:
    You NEED to have a SOLID, PERFECTLY balanced foundation....

    No, you don't. The goal of a game isn't to be balanced. It is to be fun.

    Except that no game is fun when some are more "balanced" than other. If some have fun in complexity, fine. But if some want to have fun in simplicity, they shouldn't end up being crippled due to their choice and have equal chance to play the content.

    However, this just ends in crippling the complex builds and people who prefer to play those. You're not solving the issue, you're only moving it.

    Well, no! It doesn't since player that enjoy playing complex builds have fun for the same performances than player that enjoy playing simple builds. The only thing that can cripple the complex build is the image that the player that use it give to their team. If the player that use such build end up playing poorly, it won't be very thought out, however if the players end up playing well, the build will have good reputation.

    The issue with unbalanced performance is that in the end you just keep the one which is at the top. While when the performances are balanced you have the choice in your playstyle. Pushing to have a profession above the other will always limit the choice of gameplay and thus reduce the "fun factor". Instead, pushing for balance will give option for every profession to be competitive whatever the complexity of the gameplay, allowing players to take part of the same content with varying builds.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.