MuscleBobBuffPants.1406

Ah roger, thanks! I always forget about that one.

So just so I understand the situation. 1. Currently Legendary Runes 6/6 give you all functionality (stats and special effects) 2. SoTo will remove the special effect function of Legendary Runes, so they are just Legendary Stat runes and then SoTo will introduce exotic relics. 3. In 2024, some update will be released that introduces Legendary Relics. 4. For those who have Legendary Runes, you will get "significant progress" toward a Legendary Relic. What is this statement "Players who have already crafted legendary runes will be compensated with significant progress toward unlocking legendary relics. In fact, each of the seven legendary runes you create will unlock further progress toward these relics. " Did you mean six legendary runes? Is there now a seventh rune slot just for stats?

Number 2 matchup has really been the biggest barrier I think for me and for the game mode. Not only in terms of skills but also team composition. Curious, I wonder if in the same way SPVP has pre-determined stats, I wonder if it would be helpful for people new to the game mode to also be able to choose from a selection of pre-determined builds/classes. That way they could learn how to play their class well, what their role on the team is etc. Especially for the lower tiers and those starting out. Also maybe people could earn points with their class and prove they know how to play it and that would help rank them up and you would have smoother games at higher tiers too. Finally I think overall ArenaNet needs to have a goal in mind for SPvP, what is their plan for it in terms of matchups, gameplay, balance etc. etc.

This game really needs testing servers and an upgraded feedback system. This kind of yo-yo patch cadence is not good. We seem to go from "meh" patches to "what are you thinking?" patches over the span of an entire year. If they opened up testing servers and allowed people in, either through volunteering or if space is limited some kind of lottery. You could get actual in game feedback from people. If money is an issue let us know and we can set up a GoFundMe, so you could start one. But even more so, they still need to expand upon their design philosophy video from almost a year ago. I don't think people necessarily have issues with changes (adjustments etc.), but their logic for the changes seemed to be based on some kind of excel spreadsheet and not on actual design philosophy. Finally, the communication is very lackluster. You released a balance preview, got over 50+ pages of feedback/1000 responses, drop the patch with not a single sentence of acknowledgement and then 2 days later put out this statement. Who thought that was a good idea?

Original post was illegally removed by moderator. Feel free to contact NCSoft West to let them know your thoughts and opinions! https://us.ncsoft.com/en-us Public Relations Email NCWPR@ncsoft.com

Calm down, everyone will get an unidentified dye, some karma boosters, a birthday celebration booster and achievement points.

We can leave feedback, but will it be heard?

Feel free to contact NCSoft West to let them know your thoughts and opinions! https://us.ncsoft.com/en-us Public Relations Email NCWPR@ncsoft.com

I feel like this silence means one of two things. 1. They are in brainstorming mode, because they realize their balance system and philosophy has been flawed for some time. They are thinking of a new balancing system and methodology which will be much more holistic including a fundamental overall game design philosophy which incorporates player feedback as well as internal data. 2. They are completely ignoring feedback provided. Will release the patch as is tomorrow, maybe provide some token adjustments, claim it has to do with some timeline that they need to maintain. Promise to "do better" like some kind of politician. I would highly advise against option #2.

It is interesting if you go back to the original videos of GW2 that is precisely how it played out. I still remember the first video I saw of an elementalist back in 2012, it was like a showcase of skills. Dodge meant ALOT because it was a way to avoid damage. Now it is replaced with 50 boons that just mitigate damage while you sit there. The elementalist had this huge meteor shower attack on her staff, and if you wanted to avoid damage, you dodge, or else you got pummeled. Combo fields etc. were promoted as well to get maximum damage. You had to be reactive and responsive to your teammates. Now just stack as much quickness and might as you can and spam away.

I think that is a good way to sum up the current state of the game "spiral of bad decisions". It is what I have always felt, was that game design and game balance has always been this hodge podge of decisions but with no real underlying game philosophy behind it. That is how balance patches have always felt as well. They must be looking at internal data, but anyone in data science will tell you that being able to understand and interpret data is the key. Being able to make connections. At some point, they will need to get out of that cycle and move into a more holistic viewpoint toward balance which includes data but also design as well as feedback. John Carmack is a great programmer but he also needed John Romero for design and ideas.

We had a dev surface level philosophy explanation months ago, it might be time to dive much deeper the second time around and explain your thoughts about alacrity, quickness, boons, movement, damage, stealth etc. etc. How much is too much? How much is too little? What is the end goal for damage output, mitigation etc? What is the end goal regarding WvW and boon balls? What is your plan regarding class identity? How do you balance around making sure one class doesn't do everything and there are give and takes? If we had a better idea of your goals and directions, maybe these decisions would make more sense....

This is why there will need to be more philosophy discussions as well moving forward. What does it mean for a class to be "in a good spot"? What does that entail? Movement? Damage? Buff? etc. etc. This would be a good opportunity to explain that reasoning and see if the GW2 community agrees or disagrees with that statement.

Not happy with the situation, but happy with the communication and progress in testing things and moving in the right direction. Keep iterating and improving on WvW. Keep rewarding good active behavior, encouraging fights, risk/reward behavior. I like it, after years with no WvW updates or anything, this is much needed TLC to the game mode, keep going. 👍

Disregarding the situation itself, I am happy about the post and changes. They definitely got the right idea and are moving in the right direction. Reward good behavior in WvW. Reward active participation. Nascaring around a map was boring for everyone involved. Encourage battles, fights, defense. Encourage risk/reward behavior. Combine that with good balance and working on boon balls, as well as population balance will make WvW function correctly.

I hope they read your post my friend! The boon ball question will be the make or break for the WvW team in many ways. Even when you fix the population balance problem , understanding the dynamics of boon balls, how to create engaging fights and not just people spamming stability until the cows come home. Creating incentives for people to actually fight over objectives too and not just nascaring around the whole map and avoiding each other. Encourage people and reward people NOT just for participation but for taking RISKS. Encourage people to take a keep even if it is dangerous because the high risk/reward situations make WvW FUN. Those are my best memories of frantically running around using my siege equipment trying to save a keep, calling for reinforcements, fighting people off and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, but man is it FUN. Encourage actual siege fights and battles, siege is fun when you actually engage in a battle like you are trying to down a wall but you are fighting people off and dealing with other things. Instead of just catapulting a wall from nowhere without any fight or engagement. Encourage people to fight in certain areas or certain objectives. Maybe every 30 minutes the server can set an objective for people to fight over like keeps or a castle or maybe a certain area that people need to fight to take for extra rewards etc. Make it like a hot spot for the next hour and encourage people to fight over it. Heck you can make a camp hot spot, that would be fun to see people massively battling over a hot spot camp. Or maybe make multiple hot spots at the same time so zergs will need to separate and prioritize things. When we talk about making WvW rewarding, reward GOOD BEHAVIOR. Reward that behavior of playing WvW like a battle or siege. Not just rewarding people nascaring around without fighting people and avoiding each other. Combine all this with skills and class balance, and WvW would be a FANTASTIC game mode. Let's see if they do listen!

"Make WvW more rewarding to play with a focus on active participation." "this update includes changes that are designed to encourage direct player vs. player conflict in fights over objectives while taking care to not take the fun (or the teeth) out of objective defense." I am curious, which changes in particular do you feel are going to increase more direct player vs player conflict?

I think many people echo your sentiments. You are getting at a deep balance philosophy of play and counterplay. If someone feels like they don't have a balance of counterplay, then it doesn't feel fun anymore. For example the "one shot" person you mention, the dumping of everything in 4-5 seconds and killing someone, you want to feel like you have options to counter that. I remember back in 2012 when the game was introduced they showed gameplay of the dodge mechanic. You could see a big attack being telegraphed but if you dodged it, you were rewarded by avoiding damage. But if they begin to truly balance these modes, provide this play/counterplay philosophy and balance, then you will see people become more interested in the game modes and in the game as well.

And we are providing feedback and advice on the kinds of details and philosophy and reasonings they should provide more details on and the kinds of details they should provide. #feedback #livingdocument #communityinvolvement #constructivecriticism #forumdiscussionsareverypositiveandusefulforthecommunityanddevelopers

Two things. 1. Kudos to this statement alone. THIS is probably more important than any number change or tweak or anything. The fact that the philosophy is out there for people to see and provide feedback, as long as that feedback is heard and incorporated, is great news. This is PRECISELY the direction to go in. Now any changes moving forward can always be checked against the philosophy to see if it aligns. More than any statement this year, this stream on philosophy and this statement about the living nature of it, is more reassuring than anything else. 👍 2. Barraind.7324's post is also very true. This is a very good high level overview. But as most things in life the devil is in the details. I think moving forward and into the future, these details and specifics need to be addressed with further communication and feedback. "So... that wasnt design philosophy. Maybe you could call it an abbreviated high-level overview, but the philosophy was completely missing. "We see the archtypes in PvE being DPS, Boon DPS, Healers". Right, ok, so anyone with a pulse knows that. But what we dont know is: How you feel boon application should be handled. Should alac/quick be something like renegade OFA? Should it be like herald facet spamspamspamspamspam all day? Firebrand mashing 3 skills on cooldown? Like mirage being tied to mirage cloak staff 1 with clones? What should the difference in output be between power and condition builds? in a lower intensity power build vs a condition build with nonsensical apm and positioning requirements? Does forced movement or forced immobility get taken into account? Where does the line for relative fun/complexity sit with regards to damage? Where is the line for changes being made to specs being popular but performing well below other specs that are less popular? What is the ideal perfect point of complexity vs fun on a damage output chart? "

Very good to hear. I just hope the major takeaway from this wasn't just uniqueness, I hope the takeaway was form, function, balance, movement, boons, support, stealth, damage etc. For example is it good thing to have mass stealth? What level of stealth do we want in WvW? How long should it last for roamers versus groups? etc. I hope there is a roadmap for design and design philosophy with regards to WvW and PvP in the not too distant future.

No no no. That is precisely the thought process that got us into this mess. Do you think people should try to "make sense" of mechanists? I would highly recommend not adopting that form of balancing any more. I think data-centric is precisely the issue funny enough. They are looking at numbers but not looking at why. Any data scientist will tell you that data is good, but understanding WHY is much more important. Being able to connect the dots. You don't need data driven balance, you need design driven balance. The data and numbers will flow from there. Once you have a solid design philosophy regarding things like movement, buff, debuff, stealth, support, boons etc., then everything else can be adjusted based on those decisions and designs. "Anecdotally, I as well as many, many others have observed that Scrapper has been over-performing in WvW for years. " Great lets get as many opinions as we can! Let's define over-performing. Let's understand why it is over-performing and then designed on that. Totally wiping out movement, as you pointed at earlier in your post that movement is crucial, maybe not a good idea. Again once you understand why then everything else flows from there.

Of course! Then movement is a fundamental important part of WvW and PvP. Skills that allow movement or restrict movement are important. Is it a good to idea to imply that level of restriction of movement? What kind of level of movement is acceptable in WvW and PvP? What kind of support movement do I want in WvW and PvP? Do I want a "boon ball" movement? Do I want to bring it down to a reasonable level? What is a reasonable level? Design questions my friend.

"The opinion of "the community" has to be inferred by aggregating the feedback provided across forums, reddit, ingame chat, streams, and also by looking at play-rates in both high-end tournaments and general play." Please let me know how they are aggregating this feedback. The "secret sauce" argument of balance no longer works. The secret sauce style of balancing is precisely how the mechanist become so overbuffed it became a joke. They had an entire discord conversation with experts before the June patch and didn't take it in. As you point out, the issue is fundamentally understand HOW they are taking in these "well established facts". If these "well established facts" are going to be the basis of their balance philosophy, might be a good idea to explain to the community how they get these "well established facts". "So, who is "the community"? It isn't one person you can go to and ask a question of. You can't just ask a simple yes/no question to "the community". The opinion of "the community" My friend we live in the 21st century. You consult with the community quite easily nowadays, we aren't writing long distance letters through snail mail. I actually don't agree with your question, I want to know what the community is to Arena Net as well. Is it a small group of people? I want the people who play the game involved. I want the people who play the game mode involved. I want as many people as possible involved. If you do that, then you don't have a "mechanist" buff issue like last time. "Play-rates are informative because people play things that are strong. This is obviously the case, since classes/builds go up and down in popularity based on their strength." No doubt, they determine what is "strong" and what is "weak". But you need to dive deeper than "overpowered" and "underpowered". You need to have a design philosophy as you just pointed out in your earlier post. Movement is crucial in WvW and PvP. So when you change a class or skill, then it should be clear we want this level of movement in WvW and PvP. We think this skill has this level of movement. We want to balance it so others have a similar level of movement. And movement is just one factor. What is a support class? What kinds of skills do they have? What kind of support skills do I want other classes to have? What kind of level of support do I want in WvW? Do I want boon balls? What kind of support gameplay do I want to encourage or promote in WvW and PvP? All fundamental design philosophy questions that are more important than just tweaking numbers

"And if they told you who they spoke to, would you accept it? Or would you move the goalposts to questioning the validity of that person's opinion? " It isn't my decision to accept. It is the community's decision. If the community makes a decision those ARE the goalposts. I want their input in it. I want the community to input "well established facts". "You can observe the play-rates of classes/builds in WvW and PvP to figure this stuff out. Scrapper was pretty much omni-present in large-scale WvW. You don't have to "speak" to anyone to observe this." So they are basing balance decisions on just play rates? I thought you said before that movement was also valuable in WvW and PvP. So it seems there are more considerations than just play rates. Seems like power, buff, debuff, support, movement, stealth etc. Those seem to be important factors too. Those should be used in the calculations and thoughts behind balance, no?