What is Balance to You?

Once upon a time, long ago, I once heard an interesting perspective on balance. Far enough back now that I cannot fully remember when I first came across it. Regardless, I've seen this particular perspective come up from time to time over the years. This perspective goes something like this "The game is ultimately balanced when the player is given the opportunity to play the same options as the other player(s) around them". Basically including that they have the option to play whatever they find "OP" as well. Now, a part of me understood where this perspective was coming from, but I could not bring myself to fully agree with that statement at the same time. And that is... Well, because to me, balance was - is more than that.

On a personal note. Balance to me, is also when each option (options available such as professions, food, utility etc.) exist in a way that is seen as near equal in terms of viability despite their differences, in respect to one another. For example, if there are 6 "viable" builds on one profession. Every other profession should have about "6" viable builds as well. And I should also clarify what I mean by "viable". Viable is when I feel not only like I have the reasonable opportunity to, but am bringing something important to the environment I am in. Depending how I am intended and allowed to go about that environment. If say... I am a "healer". Well, in my eyes, I should ether be the only healing profession OR... I should feel like I bring something nearly as effective as the other "viable" healing professions that exist around me; perhaps in a ways that are unique.

• Basically, "viable" = The feeling of player importance in an environment (WvW in this case) when comparing each option available, for their intended role/function to be used, in said environment.
• To put balance quite simply. If I do not feel of near equal "importance" in terms of what would be otherwise be respectable differences. Then I will not have room to feel as equally important as those around me.

Anyways, I'm just curious... What balance is to you?Not here to tell you you're right or wrong, maybe if I agree or disagree... Maybe, but really I ultimately just view whatever response as another perspective to be had. That is all, so share if you'd like.

Here is a video I've linked a few times in the past, but may help you with your response if you wish...

Lastly, the purpose of this post is to help illustrate what balance should be from at least a very general perspective and maybe be able to identify some kind of consensus around this topic. Maybe some find this information useful, maybe not... Don't care much ether way. This is all just done out of interest ultimately, so enjoy your time here as much as you'd like.Thanks.

This "balance" completely ignore the fact this is an MMO, not a sidescrolling fighting game between two characters. Professions, or classes, are called just that because they have different focuses. Everyone cant beat everything on every build in every gear stat.

But let me reiterate the truth of WvW combat: even if they cant win, any class can bring down any other class to at least 50% hp, meaning victory with 2v1 by bringing an ally is always possible.

If you fail at this... you got outplayed.

Builds, gear, the situation, sleeping at the helm, its all irrelevant to what the classes can be capable of and thus it is... Balance.

+1

What is Balance to You?

Balance to me is not being the better player but about being who's the better competitive skill player

Risk-Consequences/PenaltyReward-Hard Work/Effort

For me most important thing ( in gw2 horrible balance ) is all classes having the same chance of denying damage and hard CC or disengage. It does not happen as we have classes with too much or something that overpowers others and gives advantages with little risk to that class.

Balance to me is like combat in Dark Souls. From the moment you start you have the potential to defeat any enemy or boss in the game with enough patience and skill. You don't need to level up, you don't need to improve your armor or weapons. The reason for this is that all enemies are designed with "tells." Once you've become familiar with an enemy, you know exactly what they're about to do, whether it's an attack or a defensive move, with the slightest gesture. Everything can be punished, but so too can you. Healing abilities don't come without risks for example, and the stronger the more vulnerable you're likely to be when using it. If you block for too long you'll lose Endurance and will eventually take extra damage when that Endurance runs out, etc.

Now, I'm not saying I think a player in all green gear should be able to beat a player in full ascended. I'm also not saying a level 1 player should be a threat to a level 80. This is an MMO and there are a lot of areas to consider. If you balance around a certain aspect, like 1 v 1 for example, that could leave something incredibly underpowered or extremely overpowered in another area. You also have to consider the flavor of classes, their roles, stat combinations, etc. There are a lot of things to look at with even the smallest of them having significance. In general, I think GW2 has done a lot of things right, but particularly in the case of risk/reward combat, there are a lot of things I feel have been done wrong.

Balance to me is having clear tells for every skill allowing everything to be punished with proper timing. A Dagger/Pistol Thief is a good example of something that can take advantage of punishing skills via Headshot and Steal. They can interrupt repeatedly and they can remove buffs. If the Thief's opponent is careless they can literally be punished to death by not using skills when they're needed.

Balance to me is also not having passive effects that can save your life or carry a fight.

With all this said, I also understand GW2 is not a single player game. An MMO needs to cater to a large audience, many of which will have difference preferences and real life limitations. If for example, someone only has one hand but they really enjoy GW2, maybe a class or build that can cushion them with passive effects can help them to better enjoy themselves. And, as I'd said earlier, there are a lot of different areas to consider and certain classes might need instant cast skills with no tells, or strong passive effects, to allow them to function in different settings. Maybe a Warrior doesn't need passives in a zerg for example, but in a 1 v 1 against a decent opponent, it's probably quite necessary.

I'm not a game designer and I'm certain creating proper balance requires a full team to achieve. There are a lot of things about GW2's combat that I'm unhappy with, but a lot of things I love as well. I take it with a grain of salt and understand patches will come and go, metas will change and grow. If it were up to me, there would be a lot less passives and all instant cast skills would be removed. As much as that might improve combat in certain areas, I'm also sure it would ruin many classes and builds, as well as the fun for people that may be limited in other capacities.

There are a lot of things I've glazed over, or ignored entirely, but if I tried to touch on everything I'd be writing a novel. So let's just say I enjoy when I feel the impact of my mistakes equally as much as I do my successes. That's why I love skills like Skull Crack or Pry Bar - because I know there was a clear tell for my opponent to counter, and I know it's crucial to land the skill. It feels good to use those skills because failure to land them is going to hurt me as much as it would hurt my opponent if I did land it.

Balance in GW2 for me... well that's a tough question, on the whole gw2 balance is too fractured to give a clear answer. Each game mode requires different types of balance, often multiple. For example WvW:

• Points (maps, defense vs offense, upgrades, etc)
• Population
• Coverage
• Fight balance
  • 1vs1
  • 2vs2
  • 5vs5
  • 10vs10
  • 15vs15
  • 20vs20
  • 50vs50
  • X vs Y

Any one of those can mess up how the game mode was supposed to be played, and create ripple effects that can and will ruin for the other aspects.

If the population is off whack, and server A is outnumbered in prime time then less people want to play and further creating a balance problem in a mode where numbers generally beat anything else. This makes most people give up on the week and thus less bother to come on for off-hour to take back points, besides that controlling coverage is difficult in the first place. Which also affects the fights you'll get, because most of them is going to be outnumbered. And the game has continually been modified to reduce the ability to overcome numbers with skill.

So they all affect each others in different ways. But since this thread is about fighting balance:

The original game and combat system was balanced around 5vs5 fights (sPvP), and it's been changed and modified heavy ever since, including a change in priority from pvp to raids/fractals as the main balancing goal. WvW always struggled because some classes scales better to different numbers, and making the game/classes balanced for 1vs1 fights as well as 50vs50 fights is honestly not going to be plausible.

So it requires setting a limit on how far they're going to go with the balancing. Or how much class identity they're going to remove in order to make all classes fit into the same shoes, like giving every class "Stand your ground" in order to share stability. As sad as this is to say, the easiest and probably most plausible way to accomplish this is to give every character access to some "wvw skills/weapons/traits", like a own WvW specific elite spez available to all classes. The very act of removing class identity.

The alternative would be to completely redesign the combat from bottom up to fit for WvW (and thus mostly screw over pvp/pve), and make a whole lot of decisions regarding scaling effects, how much skill vs numbers is allowed where etc. And is honestly much more work that I'd be able to even comprehend. And I honestly don't think ANet has enough members with talent for such to be able to pull it off any-longer. The sheer scope of being able to balance everything from 1vs1 to 50vs50 alone is staggering, not even counting any X vs Y encounters.

TLDR: I think a "perfect fight balance" is impossible in gw2-wvw.

I think a more interesting point is the "target audience", as the video that @Burnfall.9573 linked to pointed out, and something similar has happened to WvW.

ANet has continually tried to remove things that helped Skill > Numbers, specifically the Stability change, but also the Elite-Spez, all the passive proc effects etc. So WvW has been slowly modified more and more toward the more "party-game" market (as they called it in that video). So I find WvW to be GW2's version of SF5, the pvp mode for spectacle, not for serious competition. And for that, the balance is almost spot on!

PVE balance is a whole other cup of tea, and honestly considering how static and predictable all the enemies becomes after you take the time to learn their patterns, doesn't need balance, just TTK adjustments.

For me balance would be ensuring all professions have discernible strengths and weaknesses that any player could figure out on day one. No profession should have strengths that are objectively better than others, and the ability to exploit a weakness shouldn't require jumping through any hoops.

The way of the Kodan

I would take a mathematical approach: balance is when all trait lines / utility lines / professions see equal play time when taken in consideration across all game modes.

If a specific traitline dominates matches in a certain given mode, then it needs either toning down or.. bring up a much less frequently used traitline to create diversity.

Of course, numbers can only identify what's underplayed or overplayed, how exactly to buff/nerf the choices is a whole other matter. Listening to experienced players might enable one to discern the cause of the issues, but the best change probably doesn't have any actual way to be objectively found.

Hence, be objective to determine what to change, be subjective to determine how to change it.

It may be that this is the reason perfect balance has never really been achieved in videogames.

fights, regardless of size, lasting 5-90 seconds.

Just stopping by to say I appreciate the response time from all the replies so far... And also the post is being a bit too slept on atm (generally speaking) for what it is. Would appreciate more feedback from more voices on the topic if possible. Thanks :)

@Whiteout.1975

I made a thread about a month or so ago in the WvW forums that touched on exactly this. The discussion was a bit polarizing, but essentially i ended up narrowing down the things that are necessary for balance in a game mode like WvW.

(Edit: oh ya you took part in that thread too. /salute)

....One of the conclusions, which as you point out, is uniqueness.

But it goes a bit further than just uniqueness, it’s competition brought about by diversity in builds. Like you said, if there are 6 viable builds on one profession or team composition, there should be at least an equal amount of builds on other classes that seek to compete with those builds, either for a spot in the party or up against each other.

Ultimately it comes down to diversity. The question is how a game like gw2 with many skills not diverse? It has to deal with scale invariance. The part that assigning roles had on classes was a huge mistake because the design choices pigeonhole builds into a certain scale. For instance we’ve all heard the following:

Thief is a +1 roamer classSoul beast is 1v1er ClassNecromancer is a team fighter

These are roles assigned by scale (going from solo to 5+) and what ends up happening is that there are no build options for a “team fighter” class to take part in 1v1s, or 1v1 classes to take part in Zerg fights etc...The build options just don’t exist because of that design philosophy.

Now if I go a bit deeper, my opinion is that the trait system right now is simply not equipped to handle more diversity, without drastic changes in the mechanics (all traits and skills need to have the capacity to be scale invariant) and changes to the trait system need to happen in order to solve this problem.

I’ve proposed solutions that could in theory work to increase diversity drastically with as much efficiency as possible. But it does require a fundamental rethinking of the traitlines and what they are actually supposed to do.

I feel balanced if my class has a place in competitive team compositions allowing me to excel (or not) and contribute. I feel out of balance if my class has a build or mechanic that allows for too many mistakes while at the same time harshly punishing another player or encounter boss routinely. I also feel out of balance if another class can claim more than one spot in competitive team comps and can fill the roles my class was originally designed for.

Balancing PvP in a mmo so that its able to be competitive is nearly impossible. No mmo has ever got pvp balance right, and anet gave up trying before HoT. Balance is a myth. Each patch that removes an op or poorly designed build just makes room for another equally op or broken build.

I try to explain my opinion as a core s/d thief mainly roamin and im pretty bad LOL-s/d has limited access to stealth (i play with healstealthtrait to have some time to react)-dmg output is fine with marauder-u need to dodge the right skills, u have no stab-if u get stunned and have no stunbreak u die, if u miss ur steal u are pretty dead aswellin general balancin is kind of hard in this game cuz anet wants that almost every class can play different roles (healer,dmg dealer, tanks). In Lol for example every champ has kind of his role and there are not many ways to play it as efficiant as possible (Items)But in the end every playstyle should have strength and weakness at the same time i tell about some problems in my opinion and maybe u can give me tips for counterplay or tell me what the weakness and the strenght are.

My problems when roaming are:

• Condi spam + Permastealth+ mobility (thief/mesmer) are not healthy, cuz u doin dmg while u are not ''attackable''. (no serious counterplay)
• Burst dmg out of stealth into permastealth + range + mobility (deadeye) (no counterplay cuz u are dead before u react) maybe they could throw in a melee skill for rifle which u need to use to set up the mark so u know there is something around
• Revs (i lose every fight cuz i dont have a clue about them xD) to much block, doing a shitload of dmg while not attackable, healing thru getting dmg which is not interruptable, while doing a ton of dmg
• Burstdmg + stealth + INVUL (Mirage) not getting dmg while u can do a ton of dmg at the same time is very dangerous
• 1.500 range, a ton of of dmg access to invul, while having most of the boons forever, invis (souldbeast) i dont think i have to explain...overloaded tell me the weakness about it
• ton of dmg, while being invul, great stab, while healin permanent (sb/war) I can live with that cuz its a warrior its should be easy to play and strong at the same time
• DH ton of dmg, block, unblockable attacks, to of healing, invul (but the can attack u while there are invul so its ok)

these are just some thoughts but in general SKILLS AND TRAITS ARE OVERLOADED and EVERYTHING SHOULD HAVE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS AT THE SAME TIME

being able to do a ton of dmg while u are invuable is very dangerous and its hard to balance it(its ok for warrrior tho i guess)

the fact that u can suit for the best traits the most efficiant states (cuz there are way more different variants then there were in the beginning) leads to unhealthy strong builds(most are the defensive traits while ur states are more dmg)

I prefer this video , where the ppl used to spamm it in these forums :
Pre-2016 it was a strange era .... we dont talk about it ...

balance?

simple: no risk, no reward.

so thieves, mesmers, rangers should not be able to do any damage (especially coming out of stealth, spamming clones, pets).

just as an example.

@"Killthehealersffs.8940" said:I prefer this video , where the ppl used to spamm it in these forums :

Pre-2016 it was a strange era .... we dont talk about it ...

But the video is right. Buffs are better than nerfs, in a loose sense.

Your getting that idea confused with power-creep, which is a completely different entity all together. Powercreep is when you introduce a set new things that overshadow with little regard to older things. Anet has never truly addressed powercreep with neither nerfs or buffs (usually just with nerfs to powercrept mechanics, after long periods of just ignoring them...even going as far as nerfing non powercrept mechanics, because the powercrept mechanics took advantage of older ones)

If your gonna play ball you need to have your facts straight man.

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:If your gonna play ball you need to have your facts straight man.Actually, both those things represents two sides of power creep. It doesn't have to be new things, it can also be updates to existing things. If you only buff to balance you will keep making things better and better so whatever was most recently adressed sets the bar and pushes the bar. Pushing the bar is the creep.

As far as the topic goes... Balance is not something subjective. Balance in computer games is the same as what the name implies. It is tolerable differences, achieving a difference that does not break the system it is apart of. Two kids on a seesaw does not have to weigh the same for the ride to work, to play together and have fun in the playground. They just have to be similar enough. That is a very accurate description of how balance impacts a sandbox or playground (like WvW) in computer games as well.

The so called buffs and nerfs are just methods of balance. Things like risk-reward balance is just a dimension of balance. In my experience people usually do not talk about risk-reward balance in relation to player abilities (and that's a good thing because that usually builds convoluted systems that are problematic to maintain balance of) instead people tend to talk about skill floors and skill roofs. In MMO there may be some value to having certain things that are more difficult to get into but it is almost never a good idea to have a system that rewards better players beyond whatever they already reap by virtue of being better players. That's why people tend to use the definitions of floors and roofs in MMO because floors may differ without causing imbalance but roofs can not differ without causing imbalance. In games with permanent loss you tend to talk about risk-reward balance, it is a good way to balance the nature and impact of grind.

As an addendum: It came up in some other recent thread on balance, but also always remember that GW2 was originally built around a party of 5. What most people think about when they talk about "Balance" in WvW has always been the best around 5 players. The further you venture from it, the worse things tend to be. A perspective you could take to understand that is to just multiply and divide. It's not exact science but it helps you understand. 10 is about as balanced as 2.5 (3), 20 is about as balanced as 1.25 (2) and 40 (50) is about as balanced as 0.625 (1). If balance is something that bothers you alot, try to play in let's say 3-20 man content because you are likely to see the best balance there or at least the least likely to be subjected to malbalance.

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Killthehealersffs.8940" said:I prefer this video , where the ppl used to spamm it in these forums :

Pre-2016 it was a strange era .... we dont talk about it ...

Yeah , i i agree with thatIf some classes can one-shot another person , you simply allow the other classes to do the sameSo they stop crying all the time

Should we increase a bit the ''defence'' , so other casuals wont whine for the low TTK (fast paced combat) ?

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:@"Whiteout.1975"

I made a thread about a month or so ago in the WvW forums that touched on exactly this. The discussion was a bit polarizing, but essentially i ended up narrowing down the things that are necessary for balance in a game mode like WvW.

(Edit: oh ya you took part in that thread too. /salute)

....One of the conclusions, which as you point out, is uniqueness.

But it goes a bit further than just uniqueness, it’s competition brought about by diversity in builds. Like you said, if there are 6 viable builds on one profession or team composition, there should be at least an equal amount of builds on other classes that seek to compete with those builds, either for a spot in the party or up against each other.

Ultimately it comes down to diversity. The question is how a game like gw2 with many skills not diverse? It has to deal with scale invariance. The part that assigning roles had on classes was a huge mistake because the design choices pigeonhole builds into a certain scale. For instance we’ve all heard the following:

Thief is a +1 roamer classSoul beast is 1v1er ClassNecromancer is a team fighter

These are roles assigned by scale (going from solo to 5+) and what ends up happening is that there are no build options for a “team fighter” class to take part in 1v1s, or 1v1 classes to take part in Zerg fights etc...The build options just don’t exist because of that design philosophy.

Now if I go a bit deeper, my opinion is that the trait system right now is simply not equipped to handle more diversity, without drastic changes in the mechanics (all traits and skills need to have the capacity to be scale invariant) and changes to the trait system need to happen in order to solve this problem.

I’ve proposed solutions that could in theory work to increase diversity drastically with as much efficiency as possible. But it does require a fundamental rethinking of the traitlines and what they are actually supposed to do.

Yea I really enjoyed the your thread :) I just wanted this thread to be around basically general thoughts/interpretations of what balance should be is all. Rather than "this is why it's not working" and sticking mainly to one initial interpretation or keep on reverting back to that one interpretation. It just occurred to me that over the years I've heard a few interpretations on balance, but the one mentioned in the OP, for some reason... Just sat with me the longest. And I think that "reason" is actually because on one hand... That perspective makes sense to some degree, but on the other... I don't believe that's the full story (or enough of the story) ether in just being able to play "anything".

I actually think GW2 is a very diverse game though. The problem that is somewhat unfortunate is that diversity and viability aren't guaranteed to go hand in hand. To me, it's like great... Games diverse, well done, but is even your greatest possible setup (for your class) "viable" for whatever role you're intending to play? And that's where the issue seems to lie because if you're not initially viable in your environment... Well, chances are you're not gonna have fun at the end of the day.

I agree though, I don't really care much for the "pigeonholed" design ether haha. Where you are basically predestined to play "x" role, but all diversity does alone with that design is let you play a different shade of the same color because you're ultimately already predestined to fulfill "x role" on your class. Then maybe you have some traits that support or something on your "roamer" class, but you will never truly compete with the class that is, as you say... A "team fighter". So, I think that design philosophy worked better at the beginning of GW2 because what you could be was more limited too things like... Traits, stats and food. When a new expansion come's out, under this same ancient design philosophy, you will get to play something new (diversity), but you will ultimately just be a different shade of the same color due to your class, as a whole, predestined to be whatever that is.

Anyways, I pretty much agree with you. If each class was more diverse as to what it could be... Viably, among the rest of the existing classes. Well, I think we would all certainly have a more enjoyable time to say the least.Thanks for commenting :+1:

@Killthehealersffs.8940 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Killthehealersffs.8940 said:I prefer this video , where the ppl used to spamm it in these forums :

Pre-2016 it was a strange era .... we dont talk about it ...

Technically speaking yes, that’s how you would solve one-shot powercreep, by bolstering the defenses of everything else.

But the best way to fight powercreep is to not actually powercreep in the first place. Otherwise, you are just fighting powercreep with more powercreep. Like subversion points out you have to raise everything to that new bar, or lower everything to a lower bar. That’s an issue in and of itself because of how many skills and traits there are in the game, and it becomes harder to quantify what’s actually over performing and what isn’t.

That’s why I’m against the philosophy as a whole when it comes to balance. It shouldn’t be about chasing the carrot on a string, it’s a more fundamental approach that’s required to solve these kinds of issues before they even begin.

@"Burnfall.9573" said:+1

What is Balance to You?

Balance to me is not being the better player but about being who's the better competitive skill player

Risk-Consequences/PenaltyReward-Hard Work/Effort

Good watch, would recommend.

@"Killthehealersffs.8940" said:I prefer this video , where the ppl used to spamm it in these forums :

Pre-2016 it was a strange era .... we dont talk about it ...

Also a good watch.

@"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:balance?

simple: no risk, no reward.

so thieves, mesmers, rangers should not be able to do any damage (especially coming out of stealth, spamming clones, pets).

just as an example.

Should not do any damage... ever?

I don't feel at all bad about landing a Backstab or a Death's Judgment from stealth and my build doesn't have much stealth on either side of a Stealth Attack so you'll know you might get Backstabbed soon, if that's still too much for you to handle you might need a game mode where nothing hits you back.