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

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Obtena.7952 said:Some run away discussion here. To be honest, there isn't much value in proposing these fictitious scenarios to argue about ... we have the real thing right here ... and many other MMO's too.

ya, right now just trying to explain that competition = balance...hopefully we can segway this back into gw2 but we can't move forward until god and others that agree with his position understand this. So i have to use his hypothetical polymock game to try and prove that point.

[LadyKitty.6120]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:Some run away discussion here. To be honest, there isn't much value in proposing these fictitious scenarios to argue about ... we have the real thing right here ... and many other MMO's too.

ya, right now just trying to explain that competition = balance...hopefully we can segway this back into gw2 but we can't move forward until god and others that agree with his position understand this. So i have to use his hypothetical polymock game to try and prove that point.

From what Kitty's been reading, your suggestions seems to be essentially "competition leads to balance by differentiating skills and builds to create new possibilities to overthrow the old meta" or something like that if Kitty hasn't totally misunderstood. But that doesn't end up in balance in this game, just in the few strong builds getting replaced by the few stronger builds. Thing to remember: skilled players ALWAYS aim for the Most Efficient Tactic Available or something as close to that as possible which greatly narrows down the viable compositions if different similar options have noticeably different performances. Even if complex theory dictates otherwise, the players pretty much always want certain few things from the compositions and those things only change if the currently wanted thing gets nerfed to oblivion or new wanted thing outcompetes the current wanted thing. And as such, strong diverse competition actually KILLS the diversity instead of adding to it. Status quo with multiple classes fighting somewhat equally for the same roles in the comps and different class/build combinations reaching similar results (with ofc some minor weaknesses and strengths over each other depending on which class/build is doing which roles in each combination) allows more diverse variety of compositions class/build-wise as in the end of the day, there's only a few results for a comp that players are interested in and they don't care very much about how they reach it as long as they do (and therefore many comps yielding those results in diversity). And from what Kitty knows, theories are relevant mostly if they explain the reality.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@LadyKitty.6120 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:Some run away discussion here. To be honest, there isn't much value in proposing these fictitious scenarios to argue about ... we have the real thing right here ... and many other MMO's too.

ya, right now just trying to explain that competition = balance...hopefully we can segway this back into gw2 but we can't move forward until god and others that agree with his position understand this. So i have to use his hypothetical polymock game to try and prove that point.

From what Kitty's been reading, your suggestions seems to be essentially "competition leads to balance by differentiating skills and builds to create new possibilities to overthrow the old meta or something like that if Kitty hasn't totally misunderstood...

NoooooooThere is no "Old meta" There are compositions. Many different ones that can all be considered "The meta" because they compete with each other, and each one replaces the other as fast as they can because it's competitive...so there is no old or new...time is becomes a non-factor the more competition arises.

But that doesn't end up in balance in this game, just in the few strong builds getting replaced by the few stronger builds. Thing to remember: skilled players ALWAYS aim for the Most Efficient Tactic Available or something as close to that as possible which greatly narrows down the viable compositions if different similar options have noticeably different performances. Even if complex theory dictates otherwise, the players pretty much always want certain few things from the compositions and those things only change if the currently wanted thing gets nerfed to oblivion or new wanted thing outcompetes the current wanted thing.

Okay i continue to repeat to myself over and over, and i'm getting exhausted here. This statement you are saying is a MISCONCEPTION about balance, and that it is separate entity from diversity. I said this from the very first page, that this thought you have of what balance is needs to leave your prespective. Balance isn't about just "nerfs" and "buffs." Balance can be achieved in different ways, one of those ways is introducing COMPETITION.

Like i believe God mentioned somewhere in the comments above, you should think of it like a big rock paper scissors game. rock is not more OP than scissors so long as paper exists to compete with rock. Extrapolate this to the scale of many variables where things aren't OP so long as there are other forces that exist to compete with it. That's why conditions and condition cleansing or corruption and stability exist in consort with each other. Nerf or buff one, and the other will ABSOLUTELY destroy everything. leading to a SINGLE metagame.

And as such, strong diverse competition actually KILLS the diversity instead of adding to it.This is completely wrong. Like the rock paper sciccors example again, just introduce more and more options that seek to compete with each other and you can have as many compositions as you want, all equally viable. Paper, Rock, Scissors, Hammer, nail...whatever... i'm sure you get the point...rock is no more the meta than is scissors, which is no more the meta game than nails....which is no more the meta game than hammers.

[God.2708]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"God.2708" said:The results of the balance changes are irrelevant. There is no state of perfect balance so all 9 combinations of being viable cannot exist. You will at best have 6 viable combinations (Remove the compositions with 3 and 2 of the 'weak' performer). Changes to balance can achieve this number, it just changes which is the weak performer and so which 6 combinations show up. The only time all 9 combinations are viable are if they are all the same (and thus there is only 'one' combination). The examples of balance changes were not meant to illustrate an increase is build combinations. It was meant to illustrate you can utilize balance to bring forward different combinations.

Your example of diversity does have more combinations than my example, but they are ultimately the same thing in terms of diversity, the fact that your new 'builds' are on the same classes does not change the number available to a team. (5

4

3 = 60 combinations vs your 6

5

4 = 120 combinations). And you would have to sprinkle some balance onto this to ensure there is in fact more combinations (as perhaps when introduced the DoT is so strong you would be stupid to take anything but 3 of those making only one combination viable) so balance does enter. Remember perfect balance does not exist.

The fact you focused on my example that was meant to illuminate the definitions you have been using (and you utilized them yourself to indicate they are indeed correct) but ignored the actual crux of my argument has me ????.

This is where your misconception of the entire concept comes about. The balance you are talking about and the balance brought about by diversity are two different things.

Yes. I'm aware. I'm simplifying statements because your ability to argue your points with something as complex as GW2 is awful, and your ability to explain them with the polymock game is vastly improved. You seem to be struggling with the fact that nothing you have said is something I don't know or disagree with. I am attempting to explain things to make you further illuminate your point so others can understand. You keep setting up straw-men with my examples like they are somehow my argument and then putting words into my mouth.

Note, for example, how I state that balance can be utilized to change which combinations are available (because at no point can all combinations exist. It is not feasible except in a fantasy diversity land where everything perfectly competes). You don't dispute this, you instead state

This isn't even the primary misconception that you have here on the subject. It's that as you introduce more diversity, you by proxy introduce more competition. Competition in and of itself is a form of balance, ...

AND I QUOTE MYSELF:

"Instead they say the best way to balance the game (WvW specifically I assume given the forum location) is to introduce more options".

Holy shit. Maybe I do understand exactly what you are talking about? I explain that that is not a great idea due to cost of resources, but I literally just said what you are trying to say I do not understand almost word for fucking word. Jesus Christ. Then you have the gall to make some snarky comment about how I'm trying to prove you wrong while I'm over here agreeing with you and your definitions while you can't even get my actual argument straight.

I'll repeat for the third time: Arenanet is already doing this. It's just instead of constantly adding more and more development costs by constantly expanding an already incredibly diverse system, they re-visit things that are not seeing any or very little use at all and re-purposing them. Diversity via recycling rather than creation. Their development resources are also, at this juncture in the lifecycle of WvW, are better spent trying to diversify the goals of the system. To use your argument, the current goals greatly favor rock, and so paper has to become absurdly strong in order to have an impact, whilst scissors are left there useless

If you're bringing this topic up to help the mess of the forum and their constant cries for 'NERF THIS PLZ' more power to you. But you're going to have to make your argument simpler and more clear.>

@LadyKitty.6120 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:Some run away discussion here. To be honest, there isn't much value in proposing these fictitious scenarios to argue about ... we have the real thing right here ... and many other MMO's too.

ya, right now just trying to explain that competition = balance...hopefully we can segway this back into gw2 but we can't move forward until god and others that agree with his position understand this. So i have to use his hypothetical polymock game to try and prove that point.

From what Kitty's been reading, your suggestions seems to be essentially "competition leads to balance by differentiating skills and builds to create new possibilities to overthrow the old meta" or...

Not quite. You have that topic in the... Fractals? Section about testing DPS on various non-meta builds. His argument is that the more of those that you add/exist, the more possibilities there are and thus the better the chances are that something that 'dominates' the meta has a counter and so loses power. So the meta becomes a slow whirlpool of flavor of the month rather than a stagnant 'this is always the best thing'. This is less applicable in a PvE setting as in PvE you are always facing the exact same boss so it becomes essentially a computer calculation to figure out which is best.Edit: To expound a little bit on Justice's point. Yes there is a META. Because there is a META then changing numbers on anything ultimately doesn't do anything but make the wheel artificially spin. (This is healthy if done slowly and appropriately, but it is important to recognize this isn't any closer to achieving 'balance'). Diversity, and balance, comes from different groups goals (Do this boss safely vs do it quickly vs do it easily). So 'balancing' PvE is more about appealing to all those different goals and, if they don't have the right tools, creating them (increasing diversity).

PvP and WvW your opponents constantly change, so if you are in a group you want to ensure you can 'beat' as many different kinds of opponents there are, and so the more opponent types you have the more diverse your set up has to be. WvW's struggle is because there is one kind of opponent that is very good at what it does, and the counter to that opponent isn't something anybody is interested in doing (because it's not worth doing), it has become very stagnant.

[LadyKitty.6120]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@LadyKitty.6120 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:Some run away discussion here. To be honest, there isn't much value in proposing these fictitious scenarios to argue about ... we have the real thing right here ... and many other MMO's too.

ya, right now just trying to explain that competition = balance...hopefully we can segway this back into gw2 but we can't move forward until god and others that agree with his position understand this. So i have to use his hypothetical polymock game to try and prove that point.

From what Kitty's been reading, your suggestions seems to be essentially "competition leads to balance by differentiating skills and builds to create new possibilities to overthrow the old meta or something like that if Kitty hasn't totally misunderstood...

NoooooooThere is no "Old meta" There are compositions. Many different ones that can all be considered "The meta" because they compete with each other, and each one replaces the other as fast as they can because it's competitive...so there is no old or new...time is becomes a non-factor the more competition arises.This might be the case if the system was fluid without fixed values. But here, the only real variables are the support, CC and damage provided by classes/builds together as various comps, the player skill, numbers, tactics and how well the squad is organized vs same things of the enemy. That's a bit simplified, obviously, but those factors explain 95% about who will win the battle in WvW. On invidual level, what a build provides depends on stats, traits, weapons and skills and it's further regulated by how the squad's commander splits the squad into subsquads. If you turned each of the earlier mentioned things into numerical values, the highest possible value possibly compiled from them for providing the highest chance of defeating the expectable enemy defines the meta for that group. Whichever side has the better real number (the numbers obviously fluctuate during the combat depending on human performance like movement, timings, actions etc.) wins the battle.

But that doesn't end up in balance in this game, just in the few strong builds getting replaced by the few stronger builds. Thing to remember: skilled players ALWAYS aim for the Most Efficient Tactic Available or something as close to that as possible which greatly narrows down the viable compositions if different similar options have noticeably different performances. Even if complex theory dictates otherwise, the players pretty much always want certain few things from the compositions and those things only change if the currently wanted thing gets nerfed to oblivion or new wanted thing outcompetes the current wanted thing.

Okay i continue to repeat to myself over and over, and i'm getting exhausted here. This statement you are saying is a MISCONCEPTION about balance, and that it is separate entity from diversity. I said this from the very first page, that this thought you have of what balance is needs to leave your prespective. Balance isn't about just "nerfs" and "buffs." Balance can be achieved in different ways, one of those ways is introducing COMPETITION.

Like i believe God mentioned somewhere in the comments above, you should think of it like a big rock paper scissors game. rock is not more OP than scissors so long as paper exists to compete with rock. Extrapolate this to the scale of many variables where things aren't OP so long as there are other forces that exist to compete with it. That's why conditions and condition cleansing or corruption and stability exist in consort with each other. Nerf or buff one, and the other will ABSOLUTELY destroy everything. leading to a SINGLE metagame.Thing is: this isn't a rock-paper-scissors game. The directly competing things in WvW are CC vs anti-CC and defensive support vs damage+offensive support. The main match is defense vs offense and CC either does or doesn't affect that match depending on whether or not CC outnumbers anti-CC. Unless one side has a serious CC advantage (which is very rare due to excessive amounts of stability in play atm), it comes down to pure damage done% vs damage taken%.Boons are currently very decisive factor in that and thus current WvW meta stacks firebrands to apply boons (no other class even remotely competes in how quickly firebrand can spam boons nor the blasphemous amount of blocks, stability and cleanses it provides) and scourges to remove them (other classes don't have even 1/5 of corruption-specialized scourge's boon corruption ability, only 3 other classes even have native boon removal/steal at all). Oh, then there's the damage portion, of course, which is pretty much done by scourges and some power offensive power builds with ranged nuke abilities in big zergs when playing the ranged pirateship game. Anything else is essentially spices to add flavour.If we wanted to make it a rock-paper-scissors, we'd need to first remove direct extra counters some may have and generally separate them so that none of the 3 would have qualities of the other 2 in any considerable quantaties. As of now, every build has at least some qualities of all 3 in varying amounts and the builds are defined by which one is the most present among them in the build.Say, if rock was CC, paper was support and scissors were dps, currently rock loses to both paper and scissors due to scissors being able to bring stability and stun-breaks. That leaves support and dps to fight each other. Though this is a RPS, bunker-built support can actually outheal the damage from dps and slowly chip its health away unless dps has enough self-sustain to heal those chips. If the dps can't burst down the support or negate it's self-sustain, the result would be tie. Also, due to how this game is built, it'd be most likely be difficult or even impossible to add a new mechanic that would change to game without being part of any of those 3 aspects of CC-Supp-DPS trinity.

And as such, strong diverse competition actually KILLS the diversity instead of adding to it.This is completely wrong. Like the rock paper sciccors example again, just introduce more and more options that seek to compete with each other and you can have as many compositions as you want, all equally viable. Paper, Rock, Scissors, Hammer, nail...whatever... i'm sure you get the point...rock is no more the meta than is scissors, which is no more the meta game than nails....which is no more the meta game than hammers.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"God.2708" said:I am attempting to explain things to make you further illuminate your point so others can understand. You keep setting up straw-men with my examples like they are somehow my argument and then putting words into my mouth.

If i ever strawman'd you then i apologize. If i did it's probably because i couldn't keep track of your initial argument, or a misunderstanding of your position on the argument. For that i'm sorry.

Holy kitten. Maybe I do understand exactly what you are talking about? I explain that that is not a great idea due to cost of resources, but I literally just said what you are trying to say I do not understand almost word for kitten word. Jesus Christ. Then you have the gall to make some snarky comment about how I'm trying to prove you wrong while I'm over here agreeing with you and your definitions while you can't even get my actual argument straight.I'll repeat for the third time: Arenanet is already doing this. It's just instead of constantly adding more and more development costs by constantly expanding an already incredibly diverse system, they re-visit things that are not seeing any or very little use at all and re-purposing them. Diversity via recycling rather than creation. Their development resources are also, at this juncture in the lifecycle of WvW, are better spent trying to diversify the goals of the system. To use your argument, the current goals greatly favor rock, and so paper has to become absurdly strong in order to have an impact, whilst scissors are left there useless

Okay ya i see where you are coming from. Diversity via recycling rather than creation, ya i have no issue with this. We don't have to add any more new classes to introduce diversity. We just need more meaningful options that make each player unique (Create heterogeneous groupings), and provide scale invariance, so that a player isn't useless in one particular scale, or mode. If we have to fundamentally alter the trait system to achieve better uniqueness than i am fully on board with that.

You definitely are right that the mode will shape the environment in which our players create their builds. without discussion it is one of the driving forces in the subject area. But, changing the goals wouldn't exactly create more diversity, because the goals that the mode demands for will always exist, and will always tend to favor builds that can achieve them. The more builds and build compositions that can achieve the goals, will be the ones that become competitive, which i think is a reflection on the limitation of builds rather than the limitation of the goals.

Just an example. "Killing players" is a very simple goal. like armament attrition, we first think of using sticks to kill each other...then knives, then guns, then tanks, then nukes...and once we hit nukes we have optimized for the goal of killing players. changing the goals for example would be like "We just want to hurt players, but not kill them" or what i like to call "the Superhero dilemma" Then nukes fall out of favor, and we return back to sticks...but now we use also stones, tazers and whatever non-fatal weapon we can think of. So all that we accomplished was changing the diversity and changing the competition of the game by changing the rules/goals. But we haven't exactly introduced anything you or I would consider balance, because we now excluded knives and guns and tanks and nukes by changing the rules, and the game will eventually tend towards the most useful non-fatal weapon.

So right now, just my personal conclusion and honest opinion, is i'm on the fence that changing these goals will change wvw for the better. Warclaw and the decrease of tower defense/siege were kind of a changes made on this level of goal making, and we see it had profound implications on the mode...for some it was better but for others worse. It's a double edge sword.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"LadyKitty.6120" said:Thing is: this isn't a rock-paper-scissors game. The directly competing things in WvW are CC vs anti-CC and defensive support vs damage+offensive support. The main match is defense vs offense and CC either does or doesn't affect that match depending on whether or not CC outnumbers anti-CC. Unless one side has a serious CC advantage (which is very rare due to excessive amounts of stability in play atm), it comes down to pure damage done% vs damage taken%.

At it's most basic consituents, WvW is a rock paper scissors game. You can't describe a game on this level of complexity by not describing it by it's most basic constituents. CC vs antiCC v Sup vs damage vs "whatever you want to name rock paper and scissors" is like what i earlier described, as just an extrapolation of the basic constituents.

You go onto extrapolate the issues of gw2's current problem...which is that we have an unbalanced rock paper scissors game, because each class can do roughly the same things as other classes, with only slight deviations that make one better than the other or do slightly more than another (a homogeneous grouping)...so you end up with rock being slightly less powerful than paper and scissors, and what you are describing to fix this is to just make adjustments to the classes.

@"LadyKitty.6120" said:"If we wanted to make it a rock-paper-scissors, we'd need to first remove direct extra counters some may have and generally separate them so that none of the 3 would have qualities of the other 2 in any considerable quantaties."

yes that is correct. but you are over-complicating the subject a bit. What you are really trying to say here is that each class should be unique...you don't even need to talk about counters. For example, rock can beat paper and scissors can beat rock...it's all arbitrary what we decide to change to these classes, so long as each class is unique, they will all compete with each other.

Anyway continuing on, everything in your comment is just an extrapolation of more basic constituents and you're over-complicating the subject.In a previous post i asked you detail how you would achieve perfect balance. You then presented a huge list of slight buff/nerfs.

Now before i even go to counter any particular example, do you really believe that you balanced the game perfectly with those changes? I'm sure you've already read from other users in this discussion that perfect balance is impossible to achieve...not just in a theoretical sense but a paradoxical one. Do you really believe that your changes provide perfect balance?

The truth is that we will never have perfect balance. tweaking numbers and cool downs may make your guardian balanced...but it makes my MMR share warrior useless. Increasing the effectiveness of one thing, decreases the effectiveness of another somewhere else in the game...by reducing competition and by proxy build diversity.

The only way to achieve perfect balance via your method is to make guardian do exactly what every other class does and it no longer remains as a rock paper scissors game...it's just rock and paper and scissors...a game completely homogenized and feature no diversity or competition...a game that frankly is decided purely by skill of the individual alone sitting at the computer.

Not saying that game wouldn't be fun. But it's not gw2 anymore at that point. If you want to play a game with no build diversity but perfect balance...play World of Warcraft. That's a game where there is no build diversity...but its still fun to play.

btw just a little extra thing. This is a rock paper scissor game that involves 5 options instead of 3. Pretty intersting to see how the "abilities" are distributed among each option. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Rock_Paper_Scissors_Lizard_Spock_en.svg/800px-Rock_Paper_Scissors_Lizard_Spock_en.svg.png

[LadyKitty.6120]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"LadyKitty.6120" said:Thing is: this isn't a rock-paper-scissors game. The directly competing things in WvW are CC vs anti-CC and defensive support vs damage+offensive support. The main match is defense vs offense and CC either does or doesn't affect that match depending on whether or not CC outnumbers anti-CC. Unless one side has a serious CC advantage (which is very rare due to excessive amounts of stability in play atm), it comes down to pure damage done% vs damage taken%.

At it's most basic consituents, WvW is a rock paper scissors game. You can't describe a game on this level of complexity by not describing it by it's most basic constituents. CC vs antiCC v Sup vs damage vs "whatever you want to name rock paper and scissors" is like what i earlier described, as just an extrapolation of the basic constituents.

You go onto extrapolate the issues of gw2's current problem...which is that we have an unbalanced rock paper scissors game, because each class can do roughly the same things as other classes, with only slight deviations that make one better than the other or do slightly more than another (a homogeneous grouping)...so you end up with rock being slightly less powerful than paper and scissors, and what you are describing to fix this is to just make adjustments to the classes.To be heard, every class CAN'T do the same things, far from that, and that's why we have the scourge and guardian stacking meta in WvW and guardian/mesmer dps stacking meta in PVE. Like Kitty already mentioned, guardian's supreme WvW support efficiency and scourge's boon corruption/ranged condibombing abilities are way stronger than anything other classes might have to effectively counter them and due to this game's limited mechanics, there's not many ways to fix it unless the devs found ways to write totally new mechanics (which requires a HUGE amount of effort considering the old game engine and lots of spaghetti inside it. You wouldn't believe how weird build-related bug Kitty found a month ago and reported it so they fixed it). Not sure if you've noticed, but pretty much EVERY major change they've made to add new ways for traits and skills to work have actually been utilizing old mechanics in new ways. The ammo system, barrier and scourge shades (though shades probably use some of the same stuff as ranger spirits) are some of the few totally new mechanics they've implemented.And as such, making adjustments to the classes is the fastest and most efficient way to balance the game and that's how Anet seems to mainly roll atm. Kitty's given concrete examples on how she'd solve balance issues to allow more diverse efficient squad compositions (though you seem to deem that homogenizing which it is in some amount). Can you suggest some actual, specific changes instead of vague "diverse unique mechanics"?And just to make it clear, Kitty's not aiming for every class having everything but a few classes having something in demand instead of just 1-2 having so much of the decisive stuff that they push every other option out of the window. And those few classes need to do it efficiently enough with suitable role condensation to viably compete with the Best-in-slot. Kitty's not asking for every class to have access to quickness, alacrity, stability, aegis and condi corruption in the same amounts as mesmer, guardian and scourge currently have, just that they'd be toned down a bit, adding opportunity cost and giving more access to some of them by other classes to allow more classes to truly compete with those 3.

@"LadyKitty.6120" said:"If we wanted to make it a rock-paper-scissors, we'd need to first remove direct extra counters some may have and generally separate them so that none of the 3 would have qualities of the other 2 in any considerable quantaties."

yes that is correct. but you are over-complicating the subject a bit. What you are really trying to say here is that each class should be unique...you don't even need to talk about counters. For example, rock can beat paper and scissors can beat rock...it's all arbitrary what we decide to change to these classes, so long as each class is unique, they will all compete with each other.They won't realistically compete with each other if a couple classes have something that gives them overwhelming advantage. That's where "crushing the competition" comes from and that's the main problem with WvW and PVE endgame balance atm.

Anyway continuing on, everything in your comment is just an extrapolation of more basic constituents and you're over-complicating the subject.In a previous post i asked you detail how you would achieve perfect balance. You then presented a huge list of slight buff/nerfs.

Now before i even go to counter any particular example, do you really believe that you balanced the game perfectly with those changes? I'm sure you've already read from other users in this discussion that perfect balance is impossible to achieve...not just in a theoretical sense but a paradoxical one. Do you really believe that your changes provide perfect balance?Like Kitty mentioned in that very post, perfect balance is impossible to achieve, but decent compromise is very realistic thing to aim for and the buffs/nerfs Kitty mentioned certainly would open the field for other options, too. Kitty didn't write about what she'd suggest to other classes due to just guardian having resulted in a wall of text and taking 4 hours to write (while Kitty actually left lots of smaller things out).The truth is that we will never have perfect balance. tweaking numbers and cool downs may make your guardian balanced...but it makes my MMR share warrior useless. Increasing the effectiveness of one thing, decreases the effectiveness of another somewhere else in the game...by reducing competition and by proxy build diversity.Can you elaborate on how those changes to guardian would make your MMR share warrior useless? If it's anything like

this build

, Kitty's suggestions make your build MORE effective in comparison, not less, because the CCs actually have a higher chance of landing on enemies (as enemy would have less stab due to guard's nerfs), your warrior would provide greater portion of condi cleanses and you'd have relatively more stab than others. Kitty's suggestions most of all decrease the effectiveness of guardian in areas where it's currently abusively effective while slightly boosting the areas where it's lacking comparing to competition (in different gamemode than where it's abusive) and that boost has a major opportunity cost (having to spec heal spec on dps-esque support or not critting enough to trigger it optimally unless sacrificing heals or that trait's effectiveness on healbrand). Kitty's suggestions also make some unused options more competitive, thereby increasing the diversity of viable traits and skills and said changes to unused options don't even directly affect other classes in any meaningful way. (If they do, point some out, please.)The only way to achieve perfect balance via your method is to make guardian do exactly what every other class does and it no longer remains as a rock paper scissors game...it's just rock and paper and scissors...a game completely homogenized and feature no diversity or competition...a game that frankly is decided purely by skill of the individual alone sitting at the computer.

Not saying that game wouldn't be fun. But it's not gw2 anymore at that point. If you want to play a game with no build diversity but perfect balance...play World of Warcraft. That's a game where there is no build diversity...but its still fun to play.Isn't the point of any interesting game indeed skill vs skill? A game where playing one of the few viable options due to them being OP compared to anything else making you win almost regardless of skills and other options paling in comparison so badly that picking them is an insta-loss makes it very boring and Kitty wouldn't play such a game. At least in PVE that's not the case yet, (and it's improved over last 12 months but guardian and mesmer having access to sharing quickness without having to invest in it, thus having almost 0 opportunity cost, while every other option have high opportunity costs for being able to provide boons is a problem and Kitty already presented a solution on how to deal with that on guardian) but in competitive gamemodes that's essentially what we have going and quite many seem to want that to change. Though what Kitty suggests might be homogenizing, it's kinda needed to decrease the disparity we have at hand.Considering that what players require from supports (and those requirements won't change unless you overhaul the whole boon system), the options to make more supports considered an option is by either boosting other options homogenizing them or by nerfing all options so that you need a combination of them to reach proper boon uptimes (prepare from big uproar from supports). Or make boons and unique buffs only available from certain classes, but history has proven that's not a good option (hinthint: ranger spirits+spotter+old GotL, warrior banners+old EA, chrono quickness+alacrity in PVE and guard stab+blocks and scourge boonstrips and condibombs in competitive modes). Which you'd consider the least evil option? Kitty picks boosting alternatives and nerfing the abusing classes. And no, don't say "adjust how the boons work". They're quite certainly hesitant about doing that as that would totally change the balance very unpredictably (and quite likely gamebreaking).btw just a little extra thing. This is a rock paper scissor game that involves 5 options instead of 3. Pretty intersting to see how the "abilities" are distributed among each option.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Rock_Paper_Scissors_Lizard_Spock_en.svg/800px-Rock_Paper_Scissors_Lizard_Spock_en.svg.png

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"LadyKitty.6120" said:Can you suggest some actual, specific changes instead of vague "diverse unique mechanics"?

So i actually made a suggestion earlier in the thread that was buried underneath all the posts. so i'll just copy paste what i wrote and place it here. this is an example of how to introduce a unique mechanic that's scale invariant and opens up diversity using as little allocation of resources as possible.

So i would start with a complete rework of traits, mainly with the purpose of making each and every trait useful in any situation. Accompanying this we can also solve the issue of invarience in the same stride, by introducing another dimension to the trait system, a scaling level system to each trait.

_so for example, let's take this trait "Written in Stone" from the elementalist traitlines...just a random trait i decided to pick on a class that i play often.https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Written_in_Stone_

Signets gain reduced recharge and continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging.Recharge Reduced: 20%

What i would do is add a leveling system, so lets say you are granted a total of 30 points to place into your traitlines, and each trait has 5 levels each. For every point you invest, the trait becomes stronger, and usually scales up, from single target to zerg level. Since you only have 30 points, you can only max out 2 of the traitlines, so you have to divide up these points in ways that appeal to you.

! So Level 1-! Signets gain reduced recharge.! Recharge Reduced: 20%!! So Level 2-! Signets gain reduced recharge and continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging.! Recharge Reduced: 20%!! So Level 3-! Signets gain reduced recharge, continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging.! Active Bonuses Apply to nearby Enemies.! Recharge Reduced: 20%!! So Level 4-! Signets gain reduced recharge, continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging.! Active Bonuses Apply to nearby Enemies. Passive bonuses apply to nearby allies.! Recharge Reduced: 20%!! So Level 5-! Signets gain reduced recharge, and reduces the recharge of equipped signets on allies around you (Does not stack)! Continue to grant their passive bonuses while recharging.! Passive bonuses apply to nearby allies. Active Bonuses Apply to nearby Enemies.! Recharge Reduced: 20%

So as you can see, each level progressively improves the capability of signets, and at the final level offers an additional dimension to the trait's interaction with other traits from other players. On top of this it makes elementalist specifically useful for provideing it's own signet effects to others, making this specific build configuration UNIQUE. These few changes alone allow for a hell of a lot more diversity, and encourage compositions like "signet-way" where multiple members in your party would run signets over other utilities.

Can you elaborate on how those changes to guardian would make your MMR share warrior useless? If it's anything like this build,

The change in question that i decided to target was this : -"Change the number of targets for Empowering Might from 5 to 10....Herald already has similar more reliable trait with complimenting 10-target facet trait and deadeye, tempest and druid have superior mightstacking traits/skills.)"

So what about my might as a warrior? I want to use FGJ in my build...but whats the point if everyone else in my squad can provide 10 people with might while mine cant? Guardian now gets 2x the effectivness of "Altruistic Healing" making them obscenely tanky whenever they land a critical attack...sounds like a slippery slope.

Most of the trait changes you propose are so minor and inconsequential, they probably wouldn't even have any effect on anything, but just another example :-Reduce the stability output of Indomitable Courage from 3 stacks for 4 seconds to 2 stacks for 3 seconds.-Reduce the stability output of Chapter 1: Unflinching Charge from 1 stack for 4 seconds to 1 stack for 3 seconds.-Reduce the stability output of Portent of Freedom from 1 stack for 5 seconds to 1 stack for 3 seconds.-Reduce the stability output of Unhindered Delivery from 5 stacks for 8 seconds to 3 stacks for 5 seconds.

Why not take more guardians then, since my composition demands stability? If you continue to reduce the duration of boons, why bother taking concentration? If you are gonna take away my boons why should i have a place at all in a squad, especially if i want to run a guardian that utilizes boons or "Altruistic Healing."

[God.2708]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@God.2708 said:I am attempting to explain things to make you further illuminate your point so others can understand. You keep setting up straw-men with my examples like they are somehow my argument and then putting words into my mouth.

If i ever strawman'd you then i apologize. If i did it's probably because i couldn't keep track of your initial argument, or a misunderstanding of your position on the argument. For that i'm sorry.

No worries. I am probably bad at explaining my point as well, overreacted a bit.

So right now, just my personal conclusion and honest opinion, is i'm on the fence that changing these goals will change wvw for the better. Warclaw and the decrease of tower defense/siege were kind of a changes made on this level of goal making, and we see it had profound implications on the mode...for some it was better but for others worse. It's a double edge sword.

I think the fundamental struggle with the mode is that if we are to accept a diverse system then there are obviously inherent strengths and weaknesses and they counter play each other. You can introduce more diversity but ultimately the mode is entirely about what kills the most the fastest. The answer to that question is scourge at critical mass, if it has support (and more diversity is unlikely to change this answer except maybe to replace it). It's a game mode where Rock Paper Scissors exists but Paper can't be played (or no one wants to play paper, rather). Until Anet introduces motivation to do things in WvW beyond either knock on empty doors,,or kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible (IE, hit multiple objectives to control the map and win the skirmish) then scourge, or whatever diverse thing pops up, will dominate.

And it has been that way for so long people are perfectly fine with scourge getting 'smiter booned' so something else can show up for a while. Spin the wheel and let something else shine for a build so build crafters have something to do. Likewise with Firebrand, but firebrand's ability to provide stability is a fundamental mechanic of coordinated group play so nerfing it isn't really the answer. There's probably some merit to diversifying options to deal with CC since CC comes in many flavors but the counter is of only one form. But, I'd be hesitant to complicate a basic component of group play.

[Whiteout.1975]

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684"

Hey man, great discussion. The main thing for me is I actually consider both "Diversity" and "Balance" to nearly go hand & hand in terms of value. So it's hard for me to put one on more of a higher pedestal than the other here. Personally, I would say "diversity is important as long as balance follows" in relation to this game at least. There are things we can't balance of course... Like player skill. However, let me put it like this... If I (or anyone) have the option to choose between a sword and a stick for battle starting out. Well, we can call that "diversity" technically... But most would feel safer with the sword (even if they aren't the best at using it). And I think that's the problem. Basically, this "illusion of choice" happening; at least for those with enough experience to notice.

Diversity makes things feel more interesting. Balance makes things feel more fair. Together they make all related things much more enjoyable and fun. That's how I see it and I wouldn't really care having one or the other if I can't have both respectfully. That is, in relation to the rest of WvW/game. Ultimately, I just want to feel diversity in balance and balance in diversity.

My understanding is for this complex system to work properly... Each piece needs have some kind of essential identity in creating whatever that system is intended to create. A sense of belonging... Like we wouldn't try to build a "car" using a rock or expect a rock to fly like a "bird". I think the problem is some classes carry "pieces" that fit miles better for the "goals" you've laid out for WvW. It would be a different story if those pieces were slightly better, because then that leaves more room for skill to take over more so. However, in general, I actually agree with you without getting too specific. Though, I think "trade-offs" (in the following video), while also in relation to the WvW environment, are extremely important here. In order to obtain this healthy relationship between diversity and balance.

(Edit) 5:20 - 5:23 "And no choice is irrelevant". This is something I feel WvW struggles with... Certain things are much more relevant than others ultimately.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Whiteout.1975" said:Hey man, great discussion....

Ya good post, and a great video that explains my position. Your post and mine are basically the exact same. We both want a balanced game, i was proposing a different way to balance (which in this video is about the rock paper scissors introducing competitive adaptation) which is still balance, which the video points out.

My understanding is for this complex system to work properly... Each piece needs have some kind of essential identity in creating whatever that system is intended to create. A sense of belonging... Like we wouldn't try to build a "car" using a rock or expect a rock to fly like a "bird". I think the problem is some classes carry "pieces" that fit miles better for the "goals" you've laid out for WvW. It would be a different story if those pieces were slightly better, because then that leaves more room for skill to take over more so. However, in general, I actually agree with you without getting too specific. Though, I think "trade-offs" (in the following video), while also in relation to the WvW environment, are extremely important here. In order to obtain this healthy relationship between diversity and balance.

I like the way you put that into perspective, that ya there are classes that just function better...have more options than others, and just overall feel imbalanced. but when players come along and take a class that actually functions properly and call for nerfs, anet makes nerfs and then turn the class from highly functional to nonfunctional. It's a big issue, and i think it could be that anet is trying to take a rock/paper/sissors game, without having the basic elements of what is rock, what is paper and what is scissors. Some of it is there.... but we have things like Corrupt >< Stability > stuns where it's not really circular.... and too many classes have access to the same things so the line is getting blurred on who's got the rocks and who;s got the scissors.

I'd talk more to you directly on this topic, especially on how i think scale invariance is really important in the balance topic, but...i'm exhausted. i've pretty much said everything i've needed to say to others here, so im really sorry for not talking more. Next time ill just link that video to people instead lol

[Svarty.8019]

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

Diversity is more important than balance ...So instead of a Balance Team there should be a Diversity Team? (that may be a strawman argument)What is their job?To make things more complicated?Obfuscate the problems even more?

It seems that the theory is that diversity happens with complexity, so if only one guy is OP instead of lots of them, the problem goes away. BUT the meta remembers, as Kitty said, so that one guy is going to spread his build to his mates.

What's the point giving us so many options, when we only choose the best one for the tasks we need to do?I say limit options and give us one build per role, per class.The classes can be used to differentiate the control mechanism in that role, by which I mean the feel/playstyle.

There's no point in diversity.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

I think the biggest thing the wvw meta lacks... is a counter. everyone runs the same thing cuz its really effective. there is no counter to it, so we see meta staling and the same types of encounters happening over and over. its funny since the game was balanced around counters but in large scale there are none. buff aoe I guess lol idk.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:I think the biggest thing the wvw meta lacks... is a counter. everyone runs the same thing cuz its really effective. there is no counter to it, so we see meta staling and the same types of encounters happening over and over. its funny since the game was balanced around counters but in large scale there are none. buff aoe I guess lol idk.

mmm kind of true. who ever falls for the fake push trap dies. pirate ship is really strong if blob versus.

fb rev weaver scourge x