[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@starhunter.6015 said:Frequent doesn't always mean better balance . Also less means some bugs go unfixed for longer. I would rather have them continue on the speed they are doing the patches now and work on getting them to be more bug free with their launch.

It does, because statistically you will produce less bugs with lower risk, its the same developers doing both remember. Automated test as part of your build is your friend here. This is well proven and established in the last 15 years.

the way it works is more patches = smaller changes = lower risk + better ability to react + changes not sitting in branches for months on end going stale. It may seem counter intuitive to non developers, but big batches of changes is a bad thing. As I said before, incrementing a skill regularly by a fraction of a % over time and monitoring will allways produce better result over time with no risk than taking a punt at changes in a 2 month window.

What we have now is exactly this, unsatisfactory patches that fail to address key issues and introduce new issues patch after patch after patch - it is evidently clear it does not work, and you can see the classic side effects: devs reluctant to talk about fixes until last minute, fundamental skills being entirely broken and not fixed for weeks, and analysis paralysis.

[Havent played in 10 months. PVP is still in a state of MASH BUTTONS to win.]

@sephiroth.4217 said:The game is balanced, just not around PvP.

The only area that balance matters is pvp. (and maybe for those that play meter wars)

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

No, but you keep ignoring it and its obvious value.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

The problem, isnt what kind of balance they are delivering, the problem, is that its been delivered rather slowly and that hurts the game. I dont expect them balancing faster to mean that they will suddenly balance smarter but they will be able to at least act upon feedback much faster.

If say your car broke down and you couldnt use or it performed way bellow what it did would u rather have mechanics have their car repair open once a week? twice a week? every day of the week minus sunday or once a month?

I would rather take my car to the mechanic to work on until its fixed, even if that took a month, than go back and forth every day hoping that perhaps this time they got it right.

A better analogy would be your firewall security, would you want that to be updated ASAP or every 2 months?

Back to your car analogy, guess what, after those 2 months you got your car back the next day and the car still still had a couple of the old problems, and now there is a new problem - but the garage told you they would not do another set of fixes for 2 months. Crazy huh

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"vesica tempestas.1563" said:Convince? It's proven in the industry. I've spent 20 years ad a senior dev, I'm perfectly aware of the impact of slow deliveries, this is not 2000.

Um, no, you don't work at Anet ... I don't care what your experience is in the industry because again ... this isn't about a debate about academics. What is relevant is how Anet does it. I've worked in the same industry in a handful of companies for 20 years too ... but I can tell you that it's not about what some textbook tells you the best way to do things; it's about how a specific company does it.

If you have worked in the industry for 20 years you should know EXACTLY what i'm talking about, its been the fundamental driving force for the last 15 years in progressive houses. I'm assuming you disagree and think slow balance cycles is good then, is that what your saying, really? Go ask google, they know a thing or 2.

https://blog.codinghorror.com/version-1-sucks-but-ship-it-anyway/

'There's no question that, for whatever time budget you have, you will end up with better software by releasing as early as practically possible, and then spending the rest of your time iterating rapidly based on real world feedback' But you know this ofc, you have worked on and off for 20 years right.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

The industry got this a decade ago. It really is old hat by now. https://blog.codinghorror.com/version-1-sucks-but-ship-it-anyway/

'There's no question that, for whatever time budget you have, you will end up with better software by releasing as early as practically possible, and then spending the rest of your time iterating rapidly based on real world feedback.'

recognise this characteristic?

'the velocity and responsiveness of your team to user feedback will set the tone for your software, far more than any single release ever could.'

option 1 slow-large-guaranteed-to-be-stale patches with a 2 month window before the next chance to correct wrongs.

Or

Deploy your changes fast and often and react in real time to customer demand.

I know what one i want as a game player.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

If you think slow balances patches are better than n fast that then we'll good luck with that lol

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

Convince? It's proven in the industry. I've spent 20 years ad a senior dev, I'm perfectly aware of the impact of slow deliveries, this is not 2000.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

Ofc You will see positive improvement. Its why agile has taken over Waterfall and fast deployment is the holy grail of responsive design.

Its a simple analagy. Imagine you could only tweak your build and gear only once every 2 months, how likely are you to get that right? Think about how awful that would be - right? In reality we constantly tweak, because we learn as we go. Same principle

I'm not arguing with you about agile vs. waterfall software development. That's not what the OP is talking about. That's not what anyone but you is talking about.

Even if Anet DID implement agile development (how do you know they don't already?), it's still not going to give people the balance they wish for. It's not going to result in less bugs, etc ... You have to understand that if the targets are different between Anet and certain players, it doesn't matter how fast it's implemented. It's still different.

Again. Imagine you could only tweak your build once every 2 months, compared to the abilty to tweak fast and often. You think any player would ever choose the latter because it will create better balancing results? - ofc not. Its the same principle.

OK .. but the reality of the game is that you can tweak your build whenever you want ... it's got nothing to do with how often we get balance patches. I mean .. the situation you are describing is how meta pushers play ... and since the game has a broader perspective, it seems like a contrived reason to push for more frequent patches.

I mean, really, it just seems like you could care less about balance ... you just want some kind of changes to keep you interested to play around with builds. That's a REALLY poor reason to ask for more patches.

Lol it was an analogy. The principle is fast and often is allways a better balancing mechanic than once every 2 months.its not difficult to understand and well proven in many disciplines, not just games. I cant conprehend why someone would argur that less frequent big bang changes are better, its been proven historically, and is common sense. I suspect some people will argue black is white for the sake of an argument, or maybe just inexperience.

Blindingly obvious side effect. There have been severe Al occasions recently where Net have entirely broken critical skills, and left broken for weeks. This I s one of the many poor side effects of slow releases.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

Ofc You will see positive improvement. Its why agile has taken over Waterfall and fast deployment is the holy grail of responsive design.

Its a simple analagy. Imagine you could only tweak your build and gear only once every 2 months, how likely are you to get that right? Think about how awful that would be - right? In reality we constantly tweak, because we learn as we go. Same principle

I'm not arguing with you about agile vs. waterfall software development. That's not what the OP is talking about. That's not what anyone but you is talking about.

Even if Anet DID implement agile development (how do you know they don't already?), it's still not going to give people the balance they wish for. It's not going to result in less bugs, etc ... You have to understand that if the targets are different between Anet and certain players, it doesn't matter how fast it's implemented. It's still different.

Again. Imagine you could only tweak your build once every 2 months, compared to the abilty to tweak fast and often. You think any player would ever choose the latter because it will create better balancing results? - ofc not. Its the same principle. As for agility, it has everything to do with faster balancing.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

Ofc You will see positive improvement. Its why agile has taken over Waterfall and fast deployment is the holy grail of responsive design.

Its a simple analagy. Imagine you could only tweak your build and gear only once every 2 months, how likely are you to get that right? Think about how awful that would be - right? In reality we constantly tweak, because we learn as we go. Same principle

I'm not arguing with you about agile vs. waterfall software development. That's not what the OP is talking about. That's not what anyone but you is talking about.

Even if Anet DID implement agile development (how do you know they don't already?), it's still not going to give people the balance they wish for. It's not going to result in less bugs, etc ... You have to understand that if the targets are different between Anet and certain players, it doesn't matter how fast it's implemented. It's still different.

Again. Imagine you could only tweak your build once every 2 months, compared to the abilty to tweak fast and often. You think any player would ever choose the latter because it will create better balancing results? - ofc not. Its the same principle.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

Ofc You will see positive improvement. Its why agile has taken over Waterfall and fast deployment is the holy grail of responsive design.

Its a simple analagy. Imagine you could only tweak your build and gear only once every 2 months, how likely are you to get that right? Think about how awful that would be - right? In reality we constantly tweak, because we learn as we go. Same principle

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Ben K.6238 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Ben K.6238 said:Frequent does not mean better.

Actually in software development methodologies it does.

To be fair, "it does" should be replaced with, "it can."

More frequent bad changes that compound each other is not better than fewer changes that might very well have more consideration put into them.

Indeed. "Fail fast, fail often" should be applied to internal testing only. Doing it on live servers is a good way to earn a bad reputation.

For computer games in particular, players take some time to adapt to new balance values. Making further adjustments before the meta has time to adjust can easily result in compounding error, so the only time that should be done is if something has gone horribly wrong (e.g. some unusual interaction between skills that makes a player permanently invulnerable).

Reducing or increasing dmg by half a percent each week is zero risk,whereas 2 monthly drops (at best)is MUCH MUCH more damaging than making an error in judgement that u fix a couple of days later. This kind of stuff is well established theory now. Example - ele uncompetitive in spvp in all but 1 build that requires 1k heal. Its taken 2 years with many many stale patches and they STILL haven't sorted it. Now imagine they incrementally tweaked ele every so slighty per week and they monitored trends. This is balancing. That is sustainable.

[Can dagger get a flat 15-20% dmg buff please?]

@kornfanxxx.9143 said:I'm probably going to be trying to talk to a bunch of concrete blocks for all the good this post will do, but I get a bit triggered when people call d/x weaver bad. I argue its not the weapon set thats bad, but rather the set currently interacts with weavers bottom tier health pool/armor rating and traitlines not to mention the current stat choices available (this is more pointed at pvp than wvw)

The weaponset has developed an interesting theme of almost exclusive cone & PbAOE damage/CC abilities in its kit. It's ability to produce, or arguably even spam reliable (sometimes unblockable) CC and deal surprisingly high damage in a circular radius around the player. It's also seen several changes providing with them 5 different I-frames just within the weapon set itself, 7 including ToF.

Add into the equation that Anet has added reliable stackable damage reduction modifiers to certain skills, (Weave self, Grinding Stones, Frost aura, Protection) and you have a build that has excellent staying power in the thick of a team fight & impressive offensive presence in its burst rotations and amount as well as consistency of its CC. Not even mentioning the plethora of blast finisher access & moderate group support via heals & condi clear if one is using water traitline.

Most everyone here knows I gush about celestial d/d unravel weaver (WvW Mainly) enough to annoy even myself but it's a very fast build that is by far one of the most complicated, yet stimulating & rewarding builds i've ever had the pleasure of playing. It has its upsides and yes, it does have its flaws.

D/D (especially if used with unravel & primordial stance) is somewhat reliant on its hybrid style damage which can be lackluster if your build relies on might which is very vulnerable to being stripped, or your opponents condition clear game is on point and they can clear fast enough to trivialise your condition damage.

It's also very complicated, using unravel wisely will win a fight, whereas careless use will lock you into an attunement with a row of cooldowns you forgot you used, leaving you vulnerable.

But really the scenarios I describe tells mainly the story of a d/d weaver in WvW, Where I can abuse the celestial stat to its fullest potential.

Spvp is sadly a different story right now: Celestial amulets in Spvp right now are a watered down version of what they were, equaling in total stat allocation what all of the four stat amulets currently provide in total stats, previously this was not the case & celestial amulets provided about 12% more total stat points than 4 stat gear, and about 26% more stats than 3 stat gear, also factoring in all of the rune & sigil changes and offensive/defensive power creep of other classes, the amulet in current form doesn't have enough offensive stat allocation to provide reasonable damage output, even with high might output (Which is also much harder to reliably achieve in spvp) you just cant get your power & condition damage numbers high enough to be dangerous.

With that in mind your forced to choose a 4 stat amulet to bring your offensive stat points up, this is where some of the bigger issues with core ele itself start to present themselves, having bottom tier health pools & light armor rating means your forced to supplement those stat points one way or another with either amulet choice or runes. Now once you've decided how to supplement those inherent weaknesses you have to deal just because your an ele, your now trying to fit together a build with enough offensive juice to reliably down players in short order, but Spvp's amulet & rune system unfortunately in its current form does not offer enough stat point allocation to provide elementalist with enough stat points to cover the glaring armor rating & health pool weakness AND provide enough offensive stat points to end fights. It's not nearly as prevalent an issue in WvW, where you can introduce far more stat points into a build.

Obviously anet wont change amulet stat allocation or rune stats to accommodate weavers, so another approach must be made, where your gonna have to introduce active sustain via invulnerability/blocks or I-frames (they're already obviously pushing this method with d/d adding i-frames to earth/earth 3), or you introduce more stat points into the build by increasing availability of might access, or flat out giving a bonus stat amount passively or with conditions.

This isn't even considering my thoughts on the traitlines as they stand, or my specific thoughts on the weapons ele has access to, thats for another thread one day.

Sorry for any typos its 3 am and i just wanted to fit my novel in before bed.

I play d/d Weaver exclusively as I enjoy the game style (without unravel) and I agree with pretty much everything here. For me in spvp I play sage, and it feels maybe 400 toughness and another hundred heal away from a good place (also ignoring useless traits etc)

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Ayrilana.1396 said:People that want more need to think back to all of the previous balance updates. Every time there's a balance update, the forums always get flooded with complaints as people are disappointed about one thing or another. Do you really want more of that?

More frequent updates does not mean that the updates you want are more likely to occur.

development agility drives behaviours that ultimately creates quality and content nearer to the point in time when it is desired. As with everything this requires skill and understanding to do well. Beware the silo'd QA department from a gone age!

Waterfall development on the other hand is awful unless perhaps your building software to drive critical medical machines etc.

look at google - daily code deployments, they do this for a reason.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Interpretor.3091 said:The way that the game company Blizzard is frequently changing and updating their game, Hearthstone, lately (since the dev team changed) should really be looked at as a model for all games as a service for the future. That game was honestly about the die (or at least be a shell of its former self) and recently within the last 6 months they have changed everything dramatically. Frequent and community driven small balance changes, quality of life implementations within the game and client, more transparent communication with the community, etc.. All of their work has revived the game and their esports scene and would really work wonders in this game as well.

Bingo.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

@Ben K.6238 said:Frequent does not mean better.

Actually in software development methodologies it does. I. E

Fail often fail fast. Fast changes means you can risk smaller incremental changes. Frequent means smaller which lowers risk

Faster means you can react quicker to demand.

Faster means you can change your priorities quicker.

Faster means your next opportunity for fixes is allways closer.

Smaller encourages good encapsulated design

Faster and smaller means you can test in live for real feedback and then react quickly.

OR

every couple months, none of above applies, planning months ahead. Too scared to communicate to customers as you can't guarantee 2 months of delivery will be on time. Can't absorb change (see 2 month plan) etc

Example in action? Let's say we deploy weekly, and you ha e an underpowered class, well let's lower power by 1% a week and monitor. Simplistic approach zero risk, customer sees action. Profit.

[Why is there no guild team at ArenaNet?]

Wvw, raids, open world are all guild content that is also is available to small guild groups. 'guild content' is simply content that can be played in large groups as well as small, otherwise you are needlessly gating it to more specific grouping criteria.

[More Frequent Balance Updates]

Fast frequent changes gives the ability to apply more smaller changes that are less risky (window to next release is much smaller)

Big patches are poor, big patches are slow. Mature devops supports fast releases, weak devops do not. Waterfall v agile in a nutshell.

Take Google as an example, millions of uses, high profile, breaks in algorithms could cost millions. Google can and frequently does deploy changes every DAY

[Thank you ANet]

Beserker is a raider thing, outside raids it's weak in pvp, wvw, Solo meta events etc, it also obviously has no condy dmg if you are going for that (e.g hybrid or burn weave). You will get a lot more flexibility and gameplay control by mixing in some vitality and then dmg and a spash of heal. Your also not locked into a s ingle gameplay style.

[Can dagger get a flat 15-20% dmg buff please?]

I play dagger and I think dmg is OK, but the real problem is when I get targeted by high power/crit enemy, poor defenses mean I quickly have to run, which plobviodly invites the pursuer to chase, its shit gameplay. A steady stream of protection would help

[Should the Skyscale map currency be reduced?]

This isn't wow where the purpose of the game is to constantly feed you items you want to keep u hooked, this is gw2 where long term goals is a big part of gameplay.You have choices:

1 farm as fast as possible - accept responsibility for your own actions and don't complain if you choose an activity you don't enjoy.

2 do what I do, accept it will take an age to farm the mount and continue to do what you enjoy, and amass the items needed as you go, occasionally targeting items when it appeals.

3. It's just a mount, do what you want and don't consider it into you activities.

[This game needs to work with computers in 2020]

Wow is a good example, they spent a lot of cash on the engine, and gameplay and population did not improve/increase, quite the opposite in fact due to deteriorating stale gameplay.

Money is better invested in what matters in a game - content. Build a new engine for gw3 in a decade or so when it compromises gameplay too much.

Consider how long it takes anet to balance tweak a number, then times that by a million for an engine rewrite. Also, careful what you ask for, eso is an utter buggy poorly performing mess due to a poorly chosen engine,. I will take an artistically gorgeous game with a little less fidelity over that any day of the week.

[[Bug] Can't get to Font of Rhand (Trying to make Mawdrey in 2018)]

Foulnight is stalled again.

[Flame Legion Battles event stuck]

bugged again..