The importance of Build Diversity and why it's more important than balance.

The above is linked to an introductory video about the study of complex systems, which is useful because it's key to understanding why Anet and Guild wars 2 in general are having such trouble with not only the balance of this game, but of ALL the systems and setbacks in this game. The important thing to understand about Complexity, is that the actions of individuals are governed by a set of rules. These individuals act upon these rules with others, sometimes following the same set of rules or a different set of rules, that end up creating patterns in the system.

Complex Systems in WvW

Let's look at World verse World...a perfect example of complexity and chaos theory put into practice in a video game. Each individual player in a zerg is acting on a basic set of rules. These rules would probably look something like this;

! 1. Stay close to the commander! 2. Survive! 3. Kill others.

now, with these simple rules, we can see that players will proactively shape the builds they create, and then act in way that will satisfy the above three rules. So you might have 5 individuals with pure damage builds to kill others, and 5 individuals with pure healing builds to help everyone survive...or you can have 10 individuals with a mix of healing and damage to help them kill and survive at the same time. As time goes on, individuals learn more and more about what helps them survive, and what helps them deal damage, and what helps them stay close to their commander, and this is reflected in the builds that are now considered meta.

Build Diversity

So where does Build Diversity come into play? Consider that every individual is running a build. If every individual ran the same build (Homogeneous group), and this build was considered to be the best way to follow the three rules above, then build diversity is essentially a flat-line...and the game is considered "Balanced." You can see that this type of game-play is not far from where we currently are in the state of the game...where two classes dominate the meta-game for builds in WvW (Firebrands, Scourge's).

So why are people complaining about balance if we are almost at a 0 point for build diversity and near max for balance? It's because in the current meta-game there are 2 classes...while there are 9 classes total...which makes 7 classes feel "left out." Anet is probably aware of this class disparity and their response to this is to tone down the two classes which they believe will "free up" the other seven classes. Here is where i believe Anet is making a mistake...in fact where everyone is making a mistake. Balancing the classes is not how to fix the games issues...rather it's reaching an understanding about complex systems, and then acting upon parameters that would change that complex system...one of which is build diversity.

So how do we actually change or increase build diversity? To increase build diversity, requires a complete 180 in understanding the importance of the individual instead of the group. Many people are thinking "But zergs with 50 people..." This is the wrong way to start thinking about balance. Everything comes down to every individual and understanding how every component of a group functions determine how the group itself functions. To increase build diversity means that every individual, unlike the homogeneous group, would be the opposite...where every individual is unique and "Disparate." Even individuals of the same class should be distinctly unique...One Ranger or Elementalist should be COMPLETELY different than another Ranger and Elementalist, and should all function to the same capacity to satisfy the 3 rules.

Conclusion

Build Diversity comes down to studying the individual components of the group to understand the system as a whole. This field of complexity expands to other areas of the game, specifically how people interact with each other (Social complexity), but that's a topic for another day. When talking about Build Diversity, i forwarded a vague explanation of how to do it exactly, and a more rigorous articulation is needed in order satisfy say, differing rules, alternate game modes etc... All of which are topics for discussion. For a final thought, consider humanity. We are all different and have different professions...some of us are security guards, computer tech ops, teachers...we all have different looks, and lifestyles...so how do we as a society function together to accomplish a single, very particular goal? (Like voting for a president?) What rules do we follow that align with these goals? The more you think about this the more it starts to look similiar to gw2.

I cant even tell what you're trying to say.

@"Dawdler.8521" said:I cant even tell what you're trying to say.

Ya, that's okay. Watch the video i linked above, and read the wiki link attached to complexity. They will help you understand on a basic level about complexity theory. It's not exactly complicated, it just requires a bit of an extrapolation...which is a change in perspective from one point of view to a much broader view about the impact on behavior individuals have on a system.

Here is another video that might be more useful in explaining exactly what Complexity theory is.

skip to 7:05-7:58 to see the exact correlation i make with Complexity theory and Build Diversity.

Like Dawdler said, I think you are shrouding the message you want across in the ambition of your post. You are making complex arguments in relation to simplistic suppositions. It is usually better to go about it the other way around.

When people talk about balance they usually do it from a point of build diversity even if the two are not one and the same. However it isn't so much build diversity that is important but rather systems and mechanics being inclusive in order to achieve an overarching balance with diversity. Builds are just the end tail of a long process when it comes to design and balance.

The same goes for player behaviour. It is actually far more complex than what basic set of rules you put up as a frame of reference. I'm not making an argument about each player being individual and generalisations not applying. They can apply. However that list is going to be wildly different among different subsets of players in the different subsets of content in the mode. The generalisation you made, even if it was just for an example, is so narrow that it doesn't fill its intended role of being a general reference. It only possibly applies to inexperienced players in large scale content. Players at most if not all other scales operate completely different and people with more experience at large scale also operates completely different from that list of priorities.

Is diversity good though? Sure, diversity and balance within the diversity is important.

@subversiontwo.7501 said:Like Dawdler said, I think you are shrouding the message you want across in the ambition of your post. You are making complex arguments in relation to simplistic suppositions. It is usually better to go about it the other way around.

When people talk about balance they usually do it from a point of build diversity even if the two are not one and the same. However it isn't so much build diversity that is important but rather systems and mechanics being inclusive in order to achieve an overarching balance with diversity. Builds are just the end tail of a long process when it comes to design and balance.

See that's where i somewhat disagree. Builds are exactly what makes every player in guildwars 2 unique. The more builds get closer and closer to being homogeneous, The more we see larger and larger balance issues until we reach "the zero point" which is a game where all builds are the same and everything is completely balanced because nobody is different. WvW will still be the same game mode in a homogeneous environment.... we will still follow the same autonomous rules, and it might even be fun....but it just wouldn't be the same game now would it?

Now about the systems and mechanics, this is essentially what we base our rules from when we go into wvw. You mention that the rules themselves are simple and generalizations...but the truth is that these are the rules we as autonomous agents EXACTLY follow, no matter how much autonomy we have. The END GOAL is to kill the other zerg, to survive the fight and to stay close to the center of your own zerg. Everything else is an intermediary to accomplish these goals. If i use a combination of skills to blast a heal field, dodge a bomb and then corrupt an enemy target so i can rez my downed ally, no matter how good i am at doing this....these are all intermediary goals that an individual with autonomy would take to survive or help others survive (one of our rules). I don't believe that changing the mechanics in wvw is necessary at all since it clearly works right now as a complex system.

@subversiontwo.7501 said:The same goes for player behaviour. It is actually far more complex than what basic set of rules you put up as a frame of reference. I'm not making an argument about each player being individual and generalizations not applying. They can apply. However that list is going to be wildly different among different subsets of players in the different subsets of content in the mode. The generalisation you made, even if it was just for an example, is so narrow that it doesn't fill its intended role of being a general reference. It only possibly applies to inexperienced players in large scale content. Players at most if not all other scales operate completely different and people with more experience at large scale also operates completely different from that list of priorities.

Ya you need to watch the video i linked above. If you think WvW is anymore special than any other complex system in nature or the world, that just doesn't make much sense now does it? People quantize complex systems (like the air transportation) all the time and everyone follows very basic set rules, and that's how it's able to function. WvW is no different. Like i mentioned above, Intermediary goals are just smaller goals that help to achieve the OVERARCHING autonomous goals set in the game mode, which are those three goals listed in the OP. If it means that i have to dodge a bomb, cast my heal skills, shout some stability, and then jump dodge over a jumping puzzle, then these intermediary goals are all there to help me survive the fight, and at all times while doing these things i'm trying to stay close to my blob. Because the goals are autonomous, i might even have to leave the proximity of my blob to survive...or i might have to sacrifice my survival to stay close to my commander (This is actually where squirreling comes from...people afraid of compromising their survival for staying on the tag)

regardless, no matter what rules an individual chooses to follow, those rules can be quantized and they won't be that complex...they can all be broken down, whether you are zerging, roaming, clouding, scouting... These are behaviors that form an even larger system than a zerg v zerg (wvw as a whole game mode).

That was a very wordy way of saying that each class should bring something unique into a group play.

For example, if they did a complete reshuffle and gave 1 boon to each class, and said that this class is the only one able to GIVE that boon to others. If they divide the boons smartly, that would make most if not all classes wanted for a WvW zerg for example.

@"joneirikb.7506" said:That was a very wordy way of saying that each class should bring something unique into a group play.

Pretty much, yes. It helps to have science on your shoulders to back up claims that others may think outlandish since no one stops to think "complex systems theory" and WvW in the same thought process. Really what i'm saying is that Build Diversity is critical to achieving a healthy balance in a game mode like WvW.

For example, if they did a complete reshuffle and gave 1 boon to each class, and said that this class is the only one able to GIVE that boon to others. If they divide the boons smartly, that would make most if not all classes wanted for a WvW zerg for example.

Very well put, this is exactly what i'm talking about.There's probably plenty of ways they can reshuffle the decks so that each player is unique. I've always had this idea that every trait should have some sort of investment point system that increases the effectiveness of the trait, so that one spite reaper can be completely different than another spite reaper for example

Well, that is exactly what people are talking about and it is exactly how the mode is designed. When people talk about overhauling the systems they are pointing to reeling back alot of the spread of utility. Not down to a level of a boon each but the early game was much more so that certain boons and certain conditions were tied to specific classes or at least that a sufficient amount of them were tied to certain classes.

Still to this day most specialisations (core to HoT and PoF) have a concept and an intended role. It is just a question of whether the concept is flawed for the mode or whether it is balanced to fullfill the role it is intended for. Most specialisations (HoT and PoF) also have rather unique features that adds diversity. It isn't hard to make outlier classes more appealing by simply adressing how powerful something is allowed to be, but that is balance.

Below: examples and references to other common related discussions on these forums.

There is no build diversity where one (or a few) builds can outclass every or most other options available.

Then there is the gameplay angle. Is it really fun or necessary to be sniped down from 2k range in a second? Probably not.Is it fun to get hit by one skill and instantly lose most of your health? No.Is it fun to get jumped and suddenly have 20+ stacks and multiple damaging conditions on you as the enemy /laughs and probably teleports 2 screens away at the same time? Not really.

So you tone down all three.

"But things can be countered by X"It shouldn't be borderline impossible to win without doing that however.

CBA to write more, you get the point.That's the stuff that matters imo.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:The END GOAL is to kill the other zerg, to survive the fight and to stay close to the center of your own zerg.I got a bit longwinded in my last post but let me try to cut to the chase. This is the thing I am reacting to. The end goal may be to win the fight and that may be to kill the other zerg or take the objective they are defending.

However, that goal can often be better achieved by not surviving the fight or at least by not being so set on surviving the fight that you do not make the plays that cements killing the other zerg. If you have 5 players make a play that kills 20 opposing players then you have decided that fight, even if you all die. For the same reason, there are plenty of players (and subsequent classes, specs and builds) that do not stay close to the center of their zergs. That is important because it reflects in your perception of the meta. Like I said before, I don't think we disagree on what is the most fundamental that you are trying to say: that diversity is important. I think we just differ in how we see that diversity and how we see that diversity relate to balance.

Those things are exemplified through the Soulbeast example (unique features not used because of balance) and the Firebrand example (balance confused with the importance of a unique-ish boon, showing how uniqueness can have adverse effects on diversity; mediated through a lens of pickups because pickups often asks for Firebrands because having too few of them is a much larger problem than having too many of them; you can't give up stability and maintain base functions while you can give up things like stealth, superspeed and superior heals or cleansing that closed groups tend to use more of because they can ensure a coverage of base needs of stability) in the long post above.

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

Build Diversity

So where does Build Diversity come into play? Consider that every individual is running a build. If every individual ran the same build (Homogeneous group), and this build was considered to be the best way to follow the three rules above, then build diversity is essentially a flat-line...and the game is considered "Balanced." You can see that this type of game-play is not far from where we currently are in the state of the game...where two classes dominate the meta-game for builds in WvW (Firebrands, Scourge's).

This is where your argument falls to pieces. The game, in general, is not 'balanced' or flat lined. To put short what @subversiontwo.7501 said, the complexity available to a group of players who wish to commit to an interesting composition development is actually a fairly open book at this juncture.

In GENERAL that is never done because players are sparse, commanders are sparser, and the individual actions of a player who tags up has dramatically more effect on the system than the random player who runs around never talking, partying, or communicating with anyone. That tag wants as little work as possible for appropriate amounts of success. (Not success every time, just 'enough' success). A zerg entirely made up of scourges and firebrands fulfills this. Diversifying builds will not change this. Nerfing firebrands and scourges will just change it to two other classes (or more likely firebrand + some other class). The only thing that would change this would be an influx of tags that raises the 'bar' to succeed. Those tags are not going to show up so long as the only motivation to do so is one of a fake prestige.

I think the message is over-complicated, but I agree. First and foremost, numbers take precedent over balance any day. Secondly, balance is impossible to achieve because people are either looking at balance in a 1v1 scenario, small group scenario (5 or less), medium to large group scenario (10-25), or zerg 25+. The first mistake people made is trying to balance the mode around 1v1 or small groups in a mode built around large groups and zergs.

Each class is supposed to support some role (whatever that may be). There should not be one class or build to rule them all (although Firebrands are about as close to this currently as we can expect). Everyone has heard of rock/paper/scissors, there will be some classes or builds that will simply be overpowering towards others, that's just the way it is. Expecting that class or build to be nerfed down because you simply don't like it is childish at best. For example, a necro complaining about being pew pew'd by a ranger. The necro then gets mad, comes to the forums and starts screaming about reducing range and damage. Or a warrior complaining about the old scourge they couldn't get close to when they had boon corrupt on their scepter auto-attack along with the original devouring darkness. Essentially all they had to do was drop a shade at their feet and "1" the warrior to death. Warrior player gets mad, runs to the forums and starts complaining (this is exactly what happened). Or guardians complaining about getting spiked down by waves of Rev's CoR's, yet the Rev has 0 chance against a Ranger or thief when jumped. We can't expect all classes and all builds to perform on an even playing field, it's impossible not to mention would be extremely boring.

People need to accept the fact that their class or build can't stand up to all classes or builds in the game (it won't matter how good you are or how bad the other player is). As of now, all classes have been kneecapped in their usefulness except Guardian. They are the only ones that remain untouched and pretty much vital to a group. Necros are/were the only ones holding them back, but now if changes go through, that will pretty much end. I suppose Anet's mission statement on balance, is make nearly all the classes useless and the battle will sort itself out.

That is another things that is interesting and important with balance (perhaps going a bit off topic here but building on what Synz is saying). I think alot of people don't understand what balance implies. It doesn't imply making things equal, it implies keeping differences tolerable. A game has good balance when differences are tolerable and a bad balance when differences are intolerable. For example, comparing core Ele and Weaver, the Weaver is better but the core Ele is often accepted. There is a tolerable difference. It is somewhat balanced.

As far as the later comments I can only refer back to what has been said. It is becomming quite the annoying discussion because people keep bringing up those arguments over and over while they have been met and debunked. If you want to keep pushing for changes to the Firebrand at least meet the other side's argument in the debate. Do not keep ignoring them in discussion after discussion and just continue harping on about it. There are cases to be made regarding adding more stability to other classes or adressing the amount of hard CC to make stability less important. However, just blindly going on about Firebrands being too good support when it is continuously being met with examples of how they are not (from players who play those other support classes, like me) or arguing that support or defenses are too good relative attacks or offense when we very clearly still have a ranged- high-cleave meta with low TTK and too much CC. I'm sorry but that is just stupid, I can't put that nicer. The same goes for the remark that since (offensive) Scourges were nerfed (defensive) Firebrands need to be nerfed, that is just vindictive stupidity.

I welcome discussions on (group) healing versus (personal) mitigation on a systemic level: perhaps DR should weigh more and all heals be slashed in half? I don't know but it is a fair balance discussion. I'm open to how to make stability more inclusive by providing it to more classes or making it less important. I just don't want to see arguments that ignores the very obvious reality of offense-to-defense or control-to-mobility. Even Anet has confirmed that now. Any attempt to preserve the status quo of the ranged-CC-bomb meta just keeps quite alot of diverse builds out of popularity and makes for stale, cowardly and boring gameplay. We are trying to break that hegemony and any argument to the contrary is counterproductive and stupid. It's not the nicest way of putting it but it needs weight. Ranged classes still always have a place in melee-heavy meta but the same can't be said about range-heavy metas. The offense-to-defense balance and the control-to-mobility balance is what currently keeps the most "builds" out of popularity.

@"DeadlySynz.3471" said:I think the message is over-complicated, but I agree. First and foremost, numbers take precedent over balance any day. Secondly, balance is impossible to achieve because people are either looking at balance in a 1v1 scenario, small group scenario (5 or less), medium to large group scenario (10-25), or zerg 25+. The first mistake people made is trying to balance the mode around 1v1 or small groups in a mode built around large groups and zergs.

Each class is supposed to support some role (whatever that may be). There should not be one class or build to rule them all (although Firebrands are about as close to this currently as we can expect). Everyone has heard of rock/paper/scissors, there will be some classes or builds that will simply be overpowering towards others, that's just the way it is. Expecting that class or build to be nerfed down because you simply don't like it is childish at best. For example, a necro complaining about being pew pew'd by a ranger. The necro then gets mad, comes to the forums and starts screaming about reducing range and damage. Or a warrior complaining about the old scourge they couldn't get close to when they had boon corrupt on their scepter auto-attack along with the original devouring darkness. Essentially all they had to do was drop a shade at their feet and "1" the warrior to death. Warrior player gets mad, runs to the forums and starts complaining (this is exactly what happened). Or guardians complaining about getting spiked down by waves of Rev's CoR's, yet the Rev has 0 chance against a Ranger or thief when jumped. We can't expect all classes and all builds to perform on an even playing field, it's impossible not to mention would be extremely boring.

People need to accept the fact that their class or build can't stand up to all classes or builds in the game (it won't matter how good you are or how bad the other player is). As of now, all classes have been kneecapped in their usefulness except Guardian. They are the only ones that remain untouched and pretty much vital to a group. Necros are/were the only ones holding them back, but now if changes go through, that will pretty much end. I suppose Anet's mission statement on balance, is make nearly all the classes useless and the battle will sort itself out.

Repeat after me: Guardians are not important or necessary. Stability is important and necessary.

Do not confuse the two. Give every class in the game SYG and Guardian will fall off the map from compositions overnight.

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:If you never join a guild you will never learn to see these things and you will always errenously confuse it with balance or a lack of diversity that isn't true.

Let's not assume that either of us are ignorant of the other's ability to understand all the information currently available to us. Personally, i am a part of a fight guild currently, and i have played wvw on all levels for a while now. I read your entire comment and i completely understand what you are saying as well and i also understand the current state of WvW balance and the whole thing with stability. Like you said we both pretty much agree on the same things.

Let me approach your comment in parts;

Part One

! Firstly, i think both of our definitions have to be clear. When we are talking about systems and mechanics, we should not be referring to how powerful parameters in said systems and mechanics actually are. When we talk about "changing stability" or the distribution of abilities that one may consider having an advantage over another, we should refer to these as parameters...particularly parameters that belong to balance, and not as changes in mechanics or systems.!! Just as a quick example so that we fully understand what we are talking about here:! Let's say Might instead of giving 30 power gives us 300 power per stack. Clearly we've changed the parameters of Might to be more powerful, and this is considered a parametric change in the realm of balance.. Now let's say we give the ability to produce might to every single class except for Necromancer. This is a parametric change in the realm of diversity, because we are homogenizing the distribution of this particular buff.!! So what would a change in mechanics or systems look like? A change in the system would be a change in the rules... If the rules are forcibly changed to conjure different behavior, then this is a change in the system rather than a specific parameter of parts in the system. So to change the behavior of players we change the rules by adjusting mechanics. Let's say we were to introduce a new mechanic, that made everyone impervious to damage, so long as they stand 300 range away from other players. What ends up happening? no idea...WvW would just be so different it wouldn't be the same WvW we would recognize anymore....probably everyone just standing still staying 300 range away from everyone...maybe it will even encourage more zergs because people are driven towards interaction with each other rather than standing around doing nothing?

! A real example of these things are mounts and gliding...which as you can tell had an effect on how roaming now works. Our autonomous goal of staying close to our blob is influenced by how fast and by how able we are in reaching our commander...and that's why we use the mounts and why roaming behavior is completely different (and by proxy non existent). Anyway, these are changes in mechanics.

Part Two

! So now that our definitions are clear and matching, then what comes next is that really we are now talking about the same thing. In my eyes, Deadeye and ranger and a lot of the Especs are not diverse at all. Consider that you and me are both human beings, capable of doing roughly the same things...lifting rocks, eating food and other fun stuff. Now what makes us different is our minds... you'll go off one day to be a Computer Engineer, and i'll go off one day to be Lawyer. Does that mean i'm not capable of becoming a computer engineer if i tried hard enough? Does that mean you aren't capable as a human being to read law books and become a lawyer?!! Looking at Deadeye's and Rangers, the rules are quiet clear...that you need to survive, kill players and stay close to blob. Deadeye's cant survive well, cant kill a lot of players and they can't stay close to the blob (cause they are squishy, and a lot of their skills don't allow for it) So guess what? The entire Deadeye profession is discarded for zerg gameplay.!! Changes in diversity, which would be introducing traits that make them more appealing for zerg fights (Like traits that make their attacks do aoe damage, made them more resilient and more mobile) would instantly make them a consideration for zerg gamplay, so long as they offer something to the format that is unique onto them. Many classes currently not in the meta just don't have the capabilities to follow the rules listed in the OP, or there are other classes that can simply do their job but better. This is not diversity, but a choking out of diversity.

Part Three

! This is the elephant in the room...Stability and unique buffs. Now i mentioned that each class, and ultimately each player should be unique and offer something unique to the table...and that's every single player not just classes. If i have one spite reaper A and another spite reaper B, The two should have completely different capabilities that make them unique, and the functions that make them unique should be equally as powerful. If builds are setup in such a way where both Spite reapers have to take the same trait's then there is SOMETHING WRONG with how the class was designed. Having the same traits being picked means that there is no diversity in the traitlines. It could also mean that something isn't properly balanced (a trait so strong that it's a clear choice to pick for any reason) this is also an indicator that something is wrong with the class design. Stability falls into this category, in which a class with access to a very powerful boon like stability (something which becomes absolutely necessary the higher in number fights become) means something is not only wrong with stability, but the CC's to which they are meant to counter. If there are tons of CC's, so much so that you need to have stability, then granting stability only to a single class is going to yield mal-diversity, and thus imbalance. Take away stability and you will have so many CC's smacking you in wvw that it will not be pretty and people will definitely find another thing to complain about in large scale zerg fights.!! Now there are a number of ways to actually solve this issue...you can redistribute the availability of stability, you can change the mechanics of stability/CC's and their effects that they have on players, or you can take away stability and CC's...Each of these options correlates to what i said earlier about homogeneity. The option that gives you the most build diversity in this case should be the route taken to balance the issue.

It's actually pretty interesting that you mention it that way because we mostly agree up to the point where you surmise that we agree, there we disagree.

The most inclusive option is not to redistribute the availability of stability it is to dramatically decrease the amount of broad control effects and decrease the value of stability that way. That would allow you to preserve something unique on a class yet not have that niche be the end-all of combat. That would open up far more diversity in how much stability-based support you "need" and open up far more diversity in both cross-scale balance of squad sizes and the symmetrics of squad composition.

Stability is overly important because hard crowd control is overly represented. It is not the other way around. Nore were the changes to rips facilitated by there being too much stability (rather the overrepresentation of other boons, like might, fury and resistance) in HoT. The kind of stability that the Firebrand provides over the other Guardian builds and other classes and builds that have the ability to share stability is directly related to the HoT-era changes to stability mechanics (making it stack based and having hard CC detract stacks) as well as the PoF-era changes to rips (especially the 1200y rips). Book 3 is extremely valuable as a result because it can reapply stability to players that are ripped or are ladened by an amount of CC from larger groups of opposing players that by far exceeds the max stacks of stability.

This game was not built around having too much CC as it has dodge-based action combat. Whether we talk about chain-CC small scale tactics seen on things like Holosmiths or Warriors or large scale tactics with an overabundance of ranged lines, rings and other reticles with CC, they all represent balance problems and things that takes from the game and makes it less fun. CC also always represents a big scale-balance issue because small good groups tend to be able to fight larger less apt groups as long as they get to move freely.

It is also easier for them to use superior coordination to achieve kills in a tanky meta than in a bursty meta but there are arguments in favour of burst too. Right now for example, building a high-burst ranged party is one of the most powerful things you can do on the side of a squad in a large scale fight. Anyway, when both hard and soft CC is abundant and automated that inherently changes a small group's ability to out-play opponents. We've seen that now with the cleansing changes for example. Smaller groups fighting larger groups will now to a much higher degree see players stuck in immobility for example. They lose by the default of simple blow-trading numbers. That also affects diversity negatively because the ability to create content between two differently-sized groups is really important in a game mode like WvW.

Ed. as a side note: If melee tactics become more prevalent and ranged classes become more of a supplement again, you will also open up more opportunities for a better variety among focus classes and builds at large scale. They too are affected by the exclusivity of range and exclusivity of range also affects the value of focus damage because singular downed players are too easily ressed if you can't maintain position due to range pressure. For example, the very limited role of things like Deadeyes or Rangers today is to snipe out high-value targets (like Elementalists or Revenants). They do that almost exclusively with ranged weapons because of the ranged meta and inherently becomes much less effective since they have less of a chance to finish them off.

If you look at focused damage in vanilla (focus parties) and HoT (stealthwars, flashstomps) that would also often involve plays securing the kills.

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:It's actually pretty interesting that you mention it that way because we mostly agree up to the point where you surmise that we agree, there we disagree.

The most inclusive option is not to redistribute the availability of stability it is to dramatically decrease the amount of broad control effects and decrease the value of stability that way. That would allow you to preserve something unique on a class yet not have that niche be the end-all of combat. That would open up far more diversity in how much stability-based support you "need" and open up far more diversity in both cross-scale balance of squad sizes and the symmetrics of squad composition.

Yea i actually changed my answer because i had to rethink it...was kinda just in a rush to publish the damn comment already lmfao. But what i meant to really say was that "the option that would increase diversity would be the way to balance the issue". I don't exactly know without thinking really heavy about the subject in particular, what route that would be. So i went and edited that part of my comment out...seems i was too late lol.

Stability is overly important because hard crowd control is overly represented. It is not the other way around. Nore were the changes to rips facilitated by there being too much stability (rather the overrepresentation of other boons, like might, fury and resistance) in HoT. The kind of stability that the Firebrand provides over the other Guardian builds and other classes and builds that have the ability to share stability is directly related to the HoT-era changes to stability mechanics (making it stack based and having hard CC detract stacks) as well as the PoF-era changes to rips (especially the 1200y rips). Book 3 is extremely valuable as a result because it can reapply stability from players that are ripped or are ladened by an amount of CC from larger groups of opposing players that by far exceeds the max stacks of stability.

...Yes i still agree with you and we are indeed after the same thing. Personally if it was up to me i would rework EVERYTHING about all the classes in this game, and even turn some of the mechanics on its head because the current class trait's are just not very nice toward diversity. Polishing a turd is still a turd as they say. All the issues we have with stability stem from CC's and there are soooo many CC's in the game, that a massive undertaking would have to be made to change parameters of balance and diversity rather than just maybe slightly tweaking CC mechanics or redistribution of Stability. It's actually really tough cookie to crack given the current classes and structures available to us currently.

Edit : At the same time i'm also thinking about how much work anet should be doing to return the game to a state of healthy balance. If they continue to do just simple parameter tweaks on balance, we won't get anywhere...it's kinda why we are still here and it's also a reflection of your comment about the perpetual battle of attrition between class buffs/nerfs.

I really don't see that much of an increase of CC in comparison to core. The larger issue with CC on groups is how it doesn't effect things equally anymore. Before you would have static fields that would halt entire zergs if they did not supply stab appropriately. A party forgets to stab and the party gets left behind. Dangerous to be sure, but still together. Now a static field hits 10 people and of those maybe 1 gets stunned and left behind which is a swift execution.

This is all without bringing up the fact that stability corrupts into fear, the second most debilitating form of CC in terms of how it can spread a group apart. There'd likely have to be some number crunching, but I think if you got rid of the RNG fears via corrupts, the amount of CC has remained semi-constant throughout the games life. The subtle and very important difference is the consistency with which the CC gets applied.

As for @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684"http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PSwAEd3lJwWYOMPWJOyLbtaA-zRIYTU/XGNWVdnqCOL6PaB-e Spite Reaper A. Corrupts 7 boons in AoE around itself then promptly crit soul spirals them all dead.http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PSgAYFlJwQYisNWJOKXqNNA-zRJYiR1fp0URlZi2ZE0dIY7so/MA-e Spite Reaper B. Corrupts singular targets then pulls them to their death through various means whilst sustaining via blighters boon + chilling victory/the spite line.

Both Spite reapers, both offer something unique and do it through a different approach, both equally effective given similar support party structures. A singular trait shared in their build. But you are asking for interesting and unique diversity in a mode that is about cohesion through leadership that DOES NOT EXIST. If you want to tear apart a blob, 10 well crafted 5 man parties will shred it so fast it is not even funny. But good luck finding that many players invested in doing such. Build Diversity has been the goal of balance patches for quite a long time, not balance. There simply isn't a system in place to support trying to be diverse.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

...Yes i still agree with you and we are indeed after the same thing. Personally if it was up to me i would rework EVERYTHING about all the classes in this game, and even turn some of the mechanics on its head because the current class trait's are just not very nice toward diversity.The good thing is that Cal has said that they are doing just that. They are doing the Shade, falling and ressing adjustments this balance pass but are working on a much larger overhaul. How that pans out is another question but at least they have confirmed that they agree on the issues.

@God.2708 said:I really don't see that much of an increase of CC in comparison to core. The larger issue with CC on groups is how it doesn't effect things equally anymore. Before you would have static fields that would halt entire zergs if they did not supply stab appropriately. A party forgets to stab and the party gets left behind. Dangerous to be sure, but still together. Now a static field hits 10 people and of those maybe 1 gets stunned and left behind which is a swift execution.

The thing to take away here is if you were to make stability vanish (which is a change in mechanic to the system btw), what would the consequences be on the game mode?

It would be two zergs smacking each other with CC's, and you either melt everyone you come across, or you get melted instantly without being able to move or turning into the worlds fastest pinball machine. Regardless of whether there are more CC's now than before or not, The more players there are, the more CC's will be present...it's just an objective truth about the game mode.

This is all without bringing up the fact that stability corrupts into fear, the second most debilitating form of CC in terms of how it can spread a group apart. There'd likely have to be some number crunching, but I think if you got rid of the RNG fears via corrupts, the amount of CC has remained semi-constant throughout the games life. The subtle and very important difference is the consistency with which the CC gets applied.

And the only real solution is to not try and balance CC's and stability by just simple changes in parameters. It will constantly be a war of attrition between the two things, and instead the real solution is to aim for build diversity, which is what gw2 lacks.

As for @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684"http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PSwAEd3lJwWYOMPWJOyLbtaA-zRIYTU/XGNWVdnqCOL6PaB-e Spite Reaper A. Corrupts 7 boons in AoE around itself then promptly crit soul spirals them all dead.http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PSgAYFlJwQYisNWJOKXqNNA-zRJYiR1fp0URlZi2ZE0dIY7so/MA-e Spite Reaper B. Corrupts singular targets then pulls them to their death through various means whilst sustaining via blighters boon + chilling victory/the spite line.

Both Spite reapers, both offer something unique and do it through a different approach, both equally effective given similar support party structures. A singular trait shared in their build. But you are asking for interesting and unique diversity in a mode that is about cohesion through leadership that DOES NOT EXIST. If you want to tear apart a blob, 10 well crafted 5 man parties will shred it so fast it is not even funny. But good luck finding that many players invested in doing such. Build Diversity has been the goal of balance patches for quite a long time, not balance. There simply isn't a system in place to support trying to be diverse.

So you can show me two builds each built slightly differently, but this doesn't exactly prove anything to the discussion at hand, if anything it just kinda shows how poor build diversity is.

Let me be very clear here. highly diverse systems are more successful in achieving their autonomous functions. If a reaper only has 10 viable WvW builds, than a game with 100 viable reaper WvW builds is more diverse and is more successful in achieving autonomous function.

Just as a reference point, gw1 had hundreds of viable team compositions for each game mode. It didn't exactly have a cohesive RvR mode, but they did have fairly complex 3 way GvG fights

@"God.2708" said:I really don't see that much of an increase of CC in comparison to core. The larger issue with CC on groups is how it doesn't effect things equally anymore. Before you would have static fields that would halt entire zergs if they did not supply stab appropriately. A party forgets to stab and the party gets left behind. Dangerous to be sure, but still together. Now a static field hits 10 people and of those maybe 1 gets stunned and left behind which is a swift execution.

This is all without bringing up the fact that stability corrupts into fear, the second most debilitating form of CC in terms of how it can spread a group apart. There'd likely have to be some number crunching, but I think if you got rid of the RNG fears via corrupts, the amount of CC has remained semi-constant throughout the games life. The subtle and very important difference is the consistency with which the CC gets applied.

You're right that there is some comparability on CC going back and rather a total sum issue, but those things are not mutually exclusive. While some reticled CC has been nerfed (been given stacks) more abilities have also been introduced or given such components (we only have to look at the last patch with Sanctuary for an example). Even in vanilla I remember us actively using Necros to "poison the well" so to speak of hostile regroups by putting their water blasts in poison fields and their empowers or SYG's in well of corruption etc., so it's not two different worlds, you are right about that.

However, the stability changes are important (and as you say, how the effects now often line up where more effects now do multiple things so you can stack them to crush counter-stacks) and how fields apply are important too, I don't remember immobility being an issue with all water- and light fields in vanilla, nore with the uptime of resistance in HoT. I've recently played a bit with a 15-man group that went poking at 20-30 man groups and the changes made the already trending Imob Tempests far more powerful against us, among the groups that used them. Whether it's things like stun-stacking vs. stability stacking or condition stacking versus cleanse stacking, the issue is that as long as it is mainly mechanically stacking oriented it causes less interplay between differently sized groups. Especially if the application of it is low effort.

Another thing that was quite interesting about stability in vanilla, which was often speculated about but never confirmed I believe, was that there was an inverse order of ripping between AoE skills and focused skills and that rips indeed had a priority order over all the boons so it wasn't random. If true, it meant that things like focus parties often took out stability first while wells of corruption took it out last. Like I said, I don't know if it was just hearsay but I do remember more guilds than my own actually building for it and testing it out to where the results supported the theory. It was just never sampled to any form of reliable results since things like steal also ripped more boons so it could feel like it better took out stability and since there was no GH the tests were mostly in live environments and muddled by everything else going on around in the fights (and even if random the difference in amounts removed was a balancing factor between focused abilities and spread abilities). It also became a non-issue with HoT and all the focused ripping there from all the focus targetting and the addition of Mallyx Revs and Reapers.

If you want Anet to go down the nightmare route scenario, they could lock us into preset "builds". That means no longer any more custom choosing our own traits, stats, skills, gear, weapons. They will then achieve true "balance" for whatever "vision" of WvW that they have.

As for @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684"

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PSwAEd3lJwWYOMPWJOyLbtaA-zRIYTU/XGNWVdnqCOL6PaB-e

Spite Reaper A. Corrupts 7 boons in AoE around itself then promptly crit soul spirals them all dead.

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PSgAYFlJwQYisNWJOKXqNNA-zRJYiR1fp0URlZi2ZE0dIY7so/MA-e

Spite Reaper B. Corrupts singular targets then pulls them to their death through various means whilst sustaining via blighters boon + chilling victory/the spite line.

Both Spite reapers, both offer something unique and do it through a different approach, both equally effective given similar support party structures. A singular trait shared in their build. But you are asking for interesting and unique diversity in a mode that is about cohesion through leadership that DOES NOT EXIST. If you want to tear apart a blob, 10 well crafted 5 man parties will shred it so fast it is not even funny. But good luck finding that many players invested in doing such. Build Diversity has been the goal of balance patches for quite a long time, not balance. There simply isn't a system in place to support trying to be diverse.

Then you're adjusting the goal posts over semantics in the definition of diversity. GW1 had hundreds of compositions but they all had a heal monk or a prot monk with maybe 1 or 2 skills different. If that is 'diverse' but two reapers with functionally everything different except a singular trait and the fact they deal power damage is not, you aren't really arguing from a fair place.

@God.2708 said:

As for @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684"

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PSwAEd3lJwWYOMPWJOyLbtaA-zRIYTU/XGNWVdnqCOL6PaB-e

Spite Reaper A. Corrupts 7 boons in AoE around itself then promptly crit soul spirals them all dead.

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?PSgAYFlJwQYisNWJOKXqNNA-zRJYiR1fp0URlZi2ZE0dIY7so/MA-e

Spite Reaper B. Corrupts singular targets then pulls them to their death through various means whilst sustaining via blighters boon + chilling victory/the spite line.

Both Spite reapers, both offer something unique and do it through a different approach, both equally effective given similar support party structures. A singular trait shared in their build. But you are asking for interesting and unique diversity in a mode that is about cohesion through leadership that DOES NOT EXIST. If you want to tear apart a blob, 10 well crafted 5 man parties will shred it so fast it is not even funny. But good luck finding that many players invested in doing such. Build Diversity has been the goal of balance patches for quite a long time, not balance. There simply isn't a system in place to support trying to be diverse.

You have to read back into my comments. I define what diversity is and how i derive it from complex systems theory, which also define what diversity is and how it effects complex systems. There are two video's i linked to complex system theory and should watch those before continuing forward.

Gw1 is more definitely more diverse than Gw2. one would be mistaken to think otherwise. Gw1 wasn't a perfect game, it had it's own sets of issues. I won't go into details about it, but i assume you can put together why it was so diverse (duel classes cough)

About your builds. I'm not here to judge how good the builds are. But remember that when people create their builds for those autonomous goals, they are looking for options that will align with them. If only one branch of traits align for their goals, then that's how you end up with power scourges. If you had 100 different configurations where every branch was optimal for their goals, then you end up with real diversity. Look at gw2's current trait tree structure and notice that it's greatly hindered by restrictions that usually only allow for a couple different setups. 'if i wanted to 1v1 on necromancer, i think there's only 3 to 4 viable builds out of possibly millions of combinations that can actually pull it off. These restrictions are actually in the interest of "balance" but it's a huge design flaw. If i wanted to be a heal necromancer for a zerg, i think there's only 2 builds that aren't even viable out of maybe only a few dozen combinations.

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

Gw1 is more definitely more diverse than Gw2. one would be mistaken to think otherwise. Gw1 wasn't a perfect game, it had it's own sets of issues. I won't go into details about it, but i assume you can put together why it was so diverse (duel classes cough)

I have to step in here. I see this argument brought up often, combined with the argument that GW1 had over 1,000 skills.

While factually true, that does not automatically equal productive diversity (or as God.2708 put it, not arguing from a fair place). While it is true that GW1 had dual classes, very often there was one or very few "best in slot" setups even as far as wanting a primary class with certain secondary classes. As far as group compositions, GW1 was less riggid in composition thanks to abuse of AI and the general ability of secondary classes to still perform certain roles as though they were a primary class, even if not ideally. Most obvious was probably necromancers which given their energy regeneration mechanic were able to outperform most other classes the moment kills were present.

The same goes for skills. 90% of the GW1 skills were trash tier or severly outlcasses by the 10% which actually saw use. This might shuffle and change with balance patches, but overall a very great amount of skills were effectively useless (and some even strait up copies of each other).

GW2 in comparison has a far lower amount of skills, but many have actual use and are not trash tier. Some might be niche or game mode dependant, but overall I'd say the relative amount of skills which make their way into useful builds is way higher in GW2 versus GW1. Similar in role performance. There is a ton of roles which every class can perform in GW2, only that there is far more optimization happening in GW2 than there ever was in GW1 (or you'd have to only count the absolute best meta builds used, which reduces the amount of deiversity severly in GW1 too).