Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Stay away from penalty traits..


LaFurion.3167

Recommended Posts

@Sobx.1758 said:Sometimes when you want to add something to the class (which especs often do), you have to take something away so it won't be a striaght upgrade of the core. Which is powercreep. Which actually would be a bad design despite of you suggesting otherwise.

Don't forget that there's always been the inherent tradeoff of the core traitline you could have taken instead. Granted, the elite traitlines have traditionally brought more than the core traitlines, but that is nevertheless a tradeoff that has always been there.

An additional tradeoff is certainly warranted, but I do feel that ArenaNet has probably overcompensated with the scrapper and chronomancer. They've each lost a function key skill, taken an additional penalty on top of that, and neither elite traitline is looking as strong as they did in HoT even before you consider those penalties. At the very least, scrapper needs something so that it isn't power or GTFO.

Thief and guardian are probably in about the right spot in this respect - both manage to have competitive core builds without crippling tradeoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scrapper should have had -300 Vitality trait if they had given them a regenerating 2000~3000 point barrier which recharges when not taking damage for 10 seconds.

How on earth is a base -300 Vitality gonna make up for barrier generation if and only if yu hit the target, and deal substantial amount of damage to actually get a meaningful amount of barrier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Chaba.5410" said:This is a terrible way to balance.

Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance? If elite spec is significantly stronger than core builds, then it's only logical that the elite spec needs something toned down or taken away -even moreso when it brings a new playstyle or possibilities to the table (and most, if not all, specs do exactly that). If you think elite spec is overnerfed compared to core then... play core builds? Or maybe you just got so used to certain elite specs being stronger than core that pulling them back in line is what really irritates you, but you don't want to admit it so you blame the "terrible way to balance"?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sobx.1758 said:

@"Chaba.5410" said:This is a terrible way to balance.

Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

I was pretty clear with my examples. Nerfing auto-elixir S was a step in the right direction to make gameplay more skill-based and remove a heavy-handed "carry me" trait. Deleting such a large amount of stat points is opposite of that. It re-introduces a heavy-handed "carry me" trait, only this time it is the opponent being carried. So I suppose it should be called a heavy-handed "handicapping" trait.

If the new barrier provided is so strong that they needed to add such a handicapping trait for it, then it's a terrible balance change. What is the point of adding something that is going to be too strong without a paired handicapping? This would be like them adding burning stacks to core condi engi build skills but they need a corresponding trait that subtracts 600 points from condi dmg to "pull them back in line".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:This is a terrible way to balance.

Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

I was pretty clear with my examples.

Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:This is a terrible way to balance.

Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

I was pretty clear with my examples.

Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

Ok so tell us objectively why hard-carry/hard-handicap traits are a good way to balance without making subjective (and laughable) judgements about what you personally think irritates other people.

Your argument about comparing specs is pretty weak because such traits can be applied to other specs and that seems to be what you are advocating for. If a core spec became overpowered, would you say that the proper way to nerf it is to apply a handicapping trait? I said it is a terrible way to balance, but really that's terrible design in general. All such traits lead to is more carry-me builds when the very thing you seem against is overpowered builds that carry people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And btw, this seems like a sort of joke talking about scrapper as overpowered compared to other specs like core. What exactly was it overpowered at? Certainly not in PvE, where engi is one of the only classes with a CORE build good enough for raids (the other is core warrior).

Yet another reason why an argument about comparing specs is weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:This is a terrible way to balance.

Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

I was pretty clear with my examples.

Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

I said it is a terrible way to balance, but really that's terrible design in general. All such traits lead to is more carry-me builds when the very thing you seem against is overpowered builds that carry people.

No, it's not. And not removing certain aspects of core spec while adding new ones in the especs just makes it so especs potentially become direct upgrades over core specs, which in fact would be a terrible design. It's not really hard to understand. And as I said, if you think picking espec isn't worth it, then pick core spec. No? I wonder why.

@Chaba.5410 said:And btw, this seems like a sort of joke talking about scrapper as overpowered compared to other specs like core. What exactly was it overpowered at? Certainly not in PvE, where engi is one of the only classes with a CORE build good enough for raids (the other is core warrior).

Yet another reason why an argument about comparing specs is weak.

What are you even talking about, where did I say anything about scrapper being overpowered? Go reread my post and this time make sure you understand it.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:This is a terrible way to balance.

Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

I was pretty clear with my examples.

Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

I said it is a terrible way to balance, but really that's terrible design in general. All such traits lead to is more carry-me builds when the very thing you seem against is overpowered builds that carry people.

No, it's not. And not removing certain aspects of core spec while adding new ones in the especs just makes it so especs potentially become direct upgrades over core specs, which in fact would be a terrible design. It's not really hard to understand. And as I said, if you think picking espec isn't worth it, then pick core spec. No? I wonder why.

Ok so tell us objectively why hard-carry/hard-handicap traits are a good way to balance. You never answered so I'm saying it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sobx.1758" said:What are you even talking about, where did I say anything about scrapper being overpowered? Go reread my post and this time make sure you understand it.

Right here:"If elite spec is significantly stronger than core builds, then it's only logical that the elite spec needs something toned down"and"If you think elite spec is overnerfed compared to core"

You just aren't laying out a clear argument if you think you didn't call scrapper overpowered compared to core and needed toning down and it is making me question why I should bother continuing with this conversation. I provided clear rationalization for why hard traits like that are terrible and Anet has historically been removing such traits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:This is a terrible way to balance.

Anet rightly nerfed the passive defense traits that heavy-handedly mitigate damage like the auto-Elixir S. But then they turn around and make a heavy-handed trait that removes stats? Makes zero sense.

What do you mean it's a terrible way to balance?

I was pretty clear with my examples.

Yup, but the thread is claiming that they should stay away from penalty traits altogether. Even you write that "it's a terrible way to balance", while in reality it's not and it makes sense. Your singular "overnerfed examples", whether they are correct or not, don't change the fact that it's NOT a bad way to balance. In fact it's overally a good way to balance especs.It's like saying that "changing stats is a terrible way to balance because they overnerfed 2 skills that one time". That claim is simply false. So is this thread and your initial claim. (which, again, was "This is a terrible way to balance.")

I said it is a terrible way to balance, but really that's terrible design in general. All such traits lead to is more carry-me builds when the very thing you seem against is overpowered builds that carry people.

No, it's not. And not removing certain aspects of core spec while adding new ones in the especs just makes it so especs potentially become direct upgrades over core specs, which in fact would be a terrible design. It's not really hard to understand. And as I said, if you think picking espec isn't worth it, then pick core spec. No? I wonder why.

Ok so tell us objectively why hard-carry/hard-handicap traits are a good way to balance. You never answered so I'm saying it again.

I have no idea what you mean by "hard-carry/hard-handicap traits", these look like terms you made up yourself, so feel free to elaborate.

...while we're at "I'm saying it again":And as I said, if you think picking espec isn't worth it, then pick core spec. No? I wonder why.

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Sobx.1758 said:What are you even talking about, where did I say anything about scrapper being overpowered? Go reread my post and this time make sure you understand it.

Right here:"If elite spec is significantly stronger than core builds, then it's only logical that the elite spec needs something toned down"and"If you think elite spec is overnerfed compared to core"

You just aren't laying out a clear argument if you think you didn't call scrapper overpowered compared to core and needed toning down and it is making me question why I should bother continuing with this conversation.

What exactly is not clear about what I've wrote? Re-read the thread and my answers and -like I already wrote before- try reaaally hard to understand it this time. I also literally wrote why you're wrong because you base the overall opinion about balancing approach on the single example(s?). And I told you why by that logic any balancing attempt would a "terrible way to balance". Then you just dodged it.Also stop dismantling your answer into multiple posts for no reason, that's just weird.

I provided clear rationalization for why hard traits like that are terrible and Anet has historically been removing such traits.

What are "hard traits"? What were they removing? What are you talking about and how's that relevant to what I wrote?tl;dr: what?

(and btw writing "IT'S A BAD WAY OF BALANCING BECAUSE SCRAPPER WASN'T OP!" is not "clear rationalization". In fact there's nothing rational about it in the context of this thread or contents of my posts)

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sobx.1758" said:What are "hard traits"? What were they removing? What are you talking about and how's that relevant to what I wrote?

sigh I guess you aren't familiar with the history.

"Traits that immediately punish players for successfully landing their skills, particularly when they are not very visible, teach the wrong things. The reworked traits are intended to encourage more active play and to provide new opportunities for the defender without outright punishing the attacker."

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/62731/game-update-notes-december-11-2018

The traits they nerfed in that patch are examples of the kind of traits I'm describing and their nerfed versions are examples of a good balance philosophy. Many of those changes were on core traitlines. There's been other similar nerfs over the years that I'm not about to dig up the patch notes for.

Removing stats on the other hand is a direct punishment. In this case it punishes the defender in favor of the attacker and it punishes just by chosing the scrapper traitline since it is a minor trait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:What are "hard traits"? What were they removing? What are you talking about and how's that relevant to what I wrote?

sigh
I guess you aren't familiar with the history.

"Traits that immediately punish players for successfully landing their skills, particularly when they are not very visible, teach the wrong things. The reworked traits are intended to encourage more active play and to provide new opportunities for the defender without outright punishing the attacker."

The traits they nerfed in that patch are examples of the kind of traits I'm describing and their nerfed versions are examples of a good balance philosophy. Many of those changes were on core traitlines. There's been other similar nerfs over the years that I'm not about to dig up the patch notes for.

sigh there's nothing that says anything about "hard traits" there, so instead of dramatically sighing, maybe you should admit you made the term up and not expect everyone to understand what you mean by that. Not to mention that you conveniently cut that out of context to -barely- fit your silly agenda.

This update reworks all traits that react automatically to incoming control effects by applying control effects on the attacker. Traits that immediately punish players for successfully landing their skills, particularly when they are not very visible, teach the wrong things. The reworked traits are intended to encourage more active play and to provide new opportunities for the defender without outright punishing the attacker.

It's about traits that react for the player and -more or less- mirror attacker's actions 'for free' and 'without a tell'. When an espec gets automatic and unavoidable playstyle or stats alteration you can tell it's there, because you know what espec your enemy plays. It's also giving a trade-off for the player picking the trait and not his opponent that lands a skill at him. So yeah, I'm so unfamiliar with that history, because it's nothing what you claim it to be.Seems you need to re-read the source you provided, because it's irrelevant to what you claim it proves, huh. You literally didn't understand what you linked.

Removing stats on the other hand is a direct punishment. In this case it punishes the defender in favor of the attacker and it punishes just by chosing the scrapper traitline since it is a minor trait.

Yeah, it ""punishes"" the defender because the espec gives you new tools at your disposal, so it needs to take away something in order for especs to not be direct and undeniable upgrades over core specs. Again, to be super kitten clear, what you linked has nothing to do with espec trade-offs like this.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sobx.1758" said:Yeah, it ""punishes"" the defender because the espec gives you new tools at your disposal, so it needs to take away something in order for especs to not be direct and undeniable upgrades over core specs. Again, to be super kitten clear, what you linked has nothing to do with espec trade-offs like this.

Do you even have a cohesive argument for why such penalty traits are good balancing? Your points are all over the map and nitpicking everything I write doesn't invalidate my main opinion. Now you are agreeing that such a trait is punishing! You may opine that this is a good way to balance, but I already told you why it wasn't: if the "new tools" are so powerful that a punishing trait needs to be added, the better design is to nerf those "new tools".

Again, to be super kitten clear:

  • Especs don't matter. All professions have traits.
  • Penalty traits are no different in concept from past traits that have been nerfed for punishing the attacker. Such traits carry whoever is not being punished rather than encourage skilled play which is terrible design.
  • Penalty traits for "trade-off" is lazy and terrible balancing because the thing that is requiring the trade-off should be the real target of a nerf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Hannelore.8153" said:No, I like them, they make taking an elite and gaining the power it brings to be a risk instead of free candy.

The barrier is just a little weak and needs to be affected by outgoing condi.

I'd like them if they where optional traits (like a adept, major, or grand master) not a minor trait, as well as provide buffs that make it worth having the penalty, scrapper is mainly played as a support in wvw, so they will rarely be dealing damage as is, so the"positive" of the trait will go largely unused (not to mention it gimps what the update was suppose to be about has the max barrier you can have is based off you HP)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chaba.5410 said:

@"Sobx.1758" said:Yeah, it ""punishes"" the defender because the espec gives you new tools at your disposal, so it needs to take away something in order for especs to not be direct and undeniable upgrades over core specs. Again, to be super kitten clear, what you linked has nothing to do with espec trade-offs like this.

Do you even have a cohesive argument for why such penalty traits are good balancing? Your points are all over the map and nitpicking everything I write doesn't invalidate my main opinion. Now you are agreeing that such a trait is punishing! You may opine that this is a good way to balance, but
I already told you why it wasn't: if the "new tools" are so powerful that a punishing trait needs to be added, the better design is to nerf those "new tools".

Why do you keep pretending half of my posts don't even exist, immediately drop any statement/question that proves you wrong or show an inherrent logical flaw in your arguments and then ask me "if I have any cohesive argument"? What a bad joke.

Again, to be super kitten clear:

  • Especs don't matter. All professions have traits.

Every complaint and "example of this being a terrible way to balance things" was about especs. You literally can't suddenly say especs don't matter, because you have nothing else to support your claim (considering what you said about especs made sense, but it didn't).Link to the patch that you posted here has nothing to do with "this way of balancing" or anet contradicting itself by "removing it in the past". I told you why you clearly didn't understand those patch notes. Which core "pentalty traits" are so terrible that they have no right to exist or prove that it's a "terrible way of balancing specs"?

  • Penalty traits are no different in concept from past traits that have been nerfed for punishing the attacker. Such traits carry whoever is not being punished rather than encourage skilled play which is terrible design.

They are very different, you failed to understand what they wrote in that patch description. These changes were VERY CLEARLY aimed at the opponent and not the person that picked the spec/trait. Try reading it again. If that won't be enough, try being objective this time and keep re-reading until it "clicks".

  • Penalty traits for "trade-off" is lazy and terrible balancing because the thing that is requiring the trade-off should be the real target of a nerf.

No, it's not, because in case of scrapper all it does is promotes more proactive gameplay. But, again, you probably just failed to understand that. And I'm commenting on that, because that's what you seem to have the main problem with even though you suddenly try to say "it's also core problem" (it's not).Ah, right, you wrote about daredevil nerf too. Did I like that nerf? Nope, nobody likes their class nerfed. Was the nerf justified? Actually yes, the whole screaming about it was a major overreaction. It's not as "spec-breaking" as some people try to make it seem to be.Also the especs are supposed to bring at least slgihtly different light to the class, nerfing 'fresh stuff' to the point it's irrelevant (because major parts of the core class are still included) would make nearly no sense for the especs to exist.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hannelore.8153 said:No, I like them, they make taking an elite and gaining the power it brings to be a risk instead of free candy.

The barrier is just a little weak and needs to be affected by outgoing condi.

Guardians can manage being tanky with low vitality. Scrapper can as well.

But the 600 range nerf on a class that CANT compete in brawling? And if he can compete ok. Lets talk about how DD is SUPPOSED to be mobile and get in your face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Sobx.1758" said:They are very different, you failed to understand what they wrote in that patch description. These changes were VERY CLEARLY aimed at the opponent and not the person that picked the spec/trait. Try reading it again. If that won't be enough, try being objective this time and keep re-reading until it "clicks".

I didn't fail to understand. Let me repeat:

  • Penalty traits are no different in concept from past traits that have been nerfed for punishing the attacker. Such traits carry whoever is not being punished rather than encourage skilled play which is terrible design.

in case of scrapper all it does is promotes more proactive gameplay. But, again, you probably just failed to understand that. And I'm commenting on that, because that's what you seem to have the main problem with even though you suddenly try to say "it's also core problem" (it's not).

Yes, yes, this is a common thing said in response. Since penalty traits "carry whoever is not being punished rather than encourage skilled play", there isn't more proactive gameplay in the case of scrapper. Also, build a scrapper that can put out enough damage proactively to make it worth the trade-off. (Hint: good luck.) Compare with other low HP specs that do not have penalty traits to achieve proper risk-reward balance .

  • Penalty traits for "trade-off" is lazy and terrible balancing because the thing that is requiring the trade-off should be the real target of a nerf.

Ah, right, you wrote about daredevil nerf too. Did I like that nerf? Nope, nobody likes their class nerfed. Was the nerf justified? Actually yes, the whole screaming about it was a major overreaction. It's not as "spec-breaking" as some people try to make it seem to be.

Show us where daredevil was nerfed using a penalty trait. It was nerfed in a far more creative way than lazy subtraction of stats.

Also the especs are supposed to bring at least slgihtly different light to the class, nerfing 'fresh stuff' to the point it's irrelevant (because major parts of the core class are still included) would make nearly no sense for the especs to exist.

Show us where penalty traits provide for a "different light" to a class. Show us what "fresh stuff" on an espec was made irrelevant by a nerf.

  • Especs don't matter. All professions have traits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, one thing I think the "elite specs need harsh downsides" brigade seems to forget (including ArenaNet's balance team this time around, which really worries me) is that there is an inherent opportunity cost in taking an elite spec - the third core spec you could have taken otherwise. This is a significant tradeoff for most professions, and for those where it isn't, the problem is usually that they have too many core traitlines that don't bring enough to the table. You could say that elite specs also get weapons and skills, but these are balanced against the core weapons and skills which could be taken instead: if they prove too powerful, they get toned down individually, so choosing an elite weapon or skill is usually a choice rather than a powerup. The reason why new weapons and skills are linked to elite specialisations is to reduce the potential of getting GW1 situations where skills which are individually balanced become horribly broken when in the right combination.

Some tradeoffs on top of this are worthwhile to keep the elite specialisations distinct and give more reason to keep with a core build than just the opportunity cost of a core traitline, but I think adjusted top-bar skills are sufficient or more than sufficient to achieve this. In past balance patches, the concept of tradeoffs has mostly been around adjusting the topbar skills (in the case of berserker, the minor that adjusts stats while berserking is still a net benefit: you can account for it by boosting your toughness to compensate and still come out ahead) - elite specialisations that already naturally replace the core topbar skills, like guardian and necromancer elite specs, have largely been left alone.

The additional penalties - the vitality loss on Scrapper and the loss of Illusionary Persona - feel like overkill to me, and overkill that pushes them into overly specialised builds. The new Impact Savant, for instance, forces Scrapper into power builds - and condition Scrappers weren't exactly prevalent before the patch, so they got kicked while they were already down. Chronomancer doesn't have such an obvious "this is where you're being forced to", but it's been made a lot harder to use to the point where now there's a good chance that experienced players will only use it for buffbots or niche builds for situations where you don't expect to use shatters in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...