do you think balancing for the top 10% of players is a good idea? - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

do you think balancing for the top 10% of players is a good idea?



  • Exedore.6320Exedore.6320 Member ✭✭✭

    The true answer is "both".

    At lower levels balance matters, but it doesn't need to be extremely precise. It mostly needs to ensure that the effort required to execute something should be close to the effort needed to defend against it. Turret engineer is the prime example of this problem where it was very simple to execute, but hard to defeat.

    High level is where you need to be more precise in balance.

    In neither case should the focus be on the "meta". Many builds and strategies should be viable for all levels of play.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 14, 2019

    @ZhouX.8742 said:
    in an attempt to allow newcomers to come in.

    I looked away for a sec and in my periphery I swear I thought newcomers said necromancers for a sec lol. was about to get mad haha.

    you don't know till you know, ya know.

  • yes

    Definitely yes to the 10% cause otherwise balance will be hell. Look at revs, pretty useless at lower tiers, but good revs can dominate teamfights.

  • no

    Absolutely not, the gw2 community should never EVER! Have a say in anything related to balance or pretty much anything really.

  • MithranArkanere.8957MithranArkanere.8957 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It is the worst possible idea.

    The one characteristic of deserving top tier players is that they can adapt to anything.
    If any player can't stay top tier after a Balance Update, they do NOT belong on the top tier. Nobody in their right mind would argue that.

    But when newbies come into the mode, if they find a hostile entry level with things like builds that can take them down in less than 1s from stealth and from out of combat without building up a single stack of vulnerability while they have a tanky build, they will just go "NOPE!", turn around, and never come back.
    GW2 doesn't have training tutorials or training challenges to learn the basics, there's no vsAI matches, there's no replays, death cams or spectator mode while defeated, the combat logs are kind of lacking.
    It's already hard enough to learn PvP. If they go and repeatedly die in 1s, they won't have any time to learn anything at all.

    All games bleed players over time, so entry level is crucial to keep new players coming in. So catering only to the feedback of the top tier will only get you an empty game mode.

    Of course, that doesn't mean top tier should be ignored. Flagrant balance issues need to be addressed asap, it doesn't matter what tier.

  • Euthymias.7984Euthymias.7984 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 15, 2019

    It cant be worse than using a dartboard to determine who/what gets nerfed.
    I also cant agree with the idea of balancing around "fun" because that's entirely subjective between players. Something can be balanced in the grand scheme of the meta but not fun to play against. Do such things deserve to be made irrelevant because they're not "fun" to deal with for some?

    Furthermore, I think that its more important to address the heart of actual complaints instead of just messing with things around an entire spec while leaving the problem untouched. Here's an example: People kitten about Druid resetting forever on side-nodes because of -Celestial Shadow- but it was never touched....instead, its healing and Avatar's Cooldown got hit repeatedly...glyphs got gutted (before a very questionable rework that hasnt really helped anything), and now even staff got a nerf. Basically they took a long way around "addressing" the problem Druid posed instead of just hitting the actual problem. The same could be said for Mirage and the Elusive Mind debacle, and many others.

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