The nerfs over the past few years have really sucked the fun out of this game for me.

[Rogue.8235]

6 hours ago, Spook.5847 said:

The nerfs to the already very limited classes in this game - and here I include the stupid skill "flow charts" now, as they are not true "trees" - are indeed annoying and make it seriously unfun, but the nerfs to even petty things (like the candy corn gobbler), the imposition of that absolutely horrid, community-destroying "megaserver", and more nerfs to gameplay routines the players create (e.g. champ trains) are what really makes it to where I simply do not want to support this company in any way.  I dislike the "us v. them" attitude that is behind so many game changes and philosophies in GW2, and the focus on creating and selling junk in the store instead of fixing broken stuff, creating fun loot, and making more interesting gaming mechanisms or content.  Now, in the constant quest to save a few more pennies, they are killing support for the XP client (instead of just leaving it in as legacy like other games do), and that really is the kicker for me, since I simply won't bother setting up one of my Win7 computers in my office just to log on for the small amount of time each day I do dailies and tend to guild stuff (I am not interested in their expansion, so don't need DX11).

(emphasis added to highlight what I'm addressing(.

You generalized the nerfs to player created gameplay routines.  Are you suggesting that every player action in the game should be untouchable?  Are you suggesting that ArenaNet should not adjust the game to incentivize intended game-design?    You shouldn't make general statements if that's not what you mean.  Otherwise, you really are arguing that every action of every player should not be interfered with.  Do you not see how flagrantly problematic this is?

 

What "us v. them" attitude?  Who are the developers against?  Where is the evidence that they are maliciously trying to make the game unenjoyable.  Think about that for a few seconds.  Why would a company make their entertainment product less entertaining just to spite its customers?  This seriously makes no sense whatsoever in any context.  There's just zero cognition behind this statement because any shred of thought would reveal how fallacious this idea is.

 

The teams that create products for the store are not the same teams that program the core functions of the game.  Do you want an artist to fix programming code of the core functions of the game?  Do you think every single person at ArenaNet does the exact same job?  If you didn't know, not everyone in the company performs the same duties.  Companies tend to hire individuals of different professions, education, and experience to cover the different functional areas of the business.  It's like not everyone at Boeing is an aerospace engineer.

 

Define interesting gaming concepts and content.  I've seen additions in every living world update.  "Interesting" has subjective elements so you'll need to define what you find interesting if you want to bring ArenaNet's attention to it.  What content that has been released fails to meet your particular interests?  What gameplay should be introduced that aligns with your particular interest?  Answering these questions leads to more constructive discourse.

 

You do realize that it is Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) that discontinued support for Windows XP, right?  This means they cut off API support and Information Security support, to include network security.  You do understand that ArenaNet does not control Microsoft, right?  ArenaNet doesn't control Microsoft products either.  This isn't a cost-savings measure.  This is the discontinuation of an operating environment by the creators of that operating environment.  ArenaNet did not create Windows XP nor do they control Windows XP.

 

All of the other things have been covered by others.

[yann.1946]

20 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

 

The problem is that you're assuming everyone shares the same subjective opinion. 

Im not, what are you talking about.

20 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

How a class feels to play against is no different from any other subjective whim already discussed.

 

20 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Some players feel that jumping puzzles are horrible to play.  Others feel that they are enjoyable to play.  This is similar to opinions on playing against any given profession and build.

The point is that there is no universal subjective opinion.  This is because opinions are based on personal biases  and/or emotions.  It is a biological fact that all humans cannot share the exact same personal bias and emotions at any given moment. 

Im not saying that their is some universal shared subjective opinion. im saying that the goal of balance should be increasing fun.

If a class is weak, but most people dont like playing against it, then that is a problem that needs fixing.

If a class is strong, but in general people love playing against it, then that is not a problem that should be addressed.

20 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

So we're back at the questions:

Whose opinions are more important than all others

At what percentage of the  player base (sharing the same subjective opinion) will the information be deemed actionable?

How do you reconcile the inconsistency and self-contradictory nature of personal opinions of the player community?  

Without answering these questions we are stuck at the following:

Every class is both oppressive and fun to play against, per opinions of the community.

I cant give you an exact percantage, but that is not really the point here right. This point will depent on a lot of variables, that does not mean that the point does not exist.

 

Lets me ask a few question, do you think a weak (performancewise) class should be buffed even if 99 percent of the playerbase hates playing against it?

Do you think their is an objective measure of when a class is strong or weak? if yes what is that measure?

 

[Rogue.8235]

22 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Lets me ask a few question, do you think a weak (performancewise) class should be buffed even if 99 percent of the playerbase hates playing against it?

Do you think their is an objective measure of when a class is strong or weak? if yes what is that measure?

I contend that 99% of the player base will never agree on any subjective matter.  I also contend that even a majority will never agree on any one thing.  We're talking millions of humans (per ArenaNet).  This is why I bring up the questions of whose opinions are more important.  A utilitarian approach to balancing based on personal opinion will not really be feasible.

22 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

If a class is weak, but most people dont like playing against it, then that is a problem that needs fixing.

If a class is strong, but in general people love playing against it, then that is not a problem that should be addressed.

I'm stating that the "most" in these statements won't be reached.  There are too many variations of personal feelings for there to be a consistent idea to work with.  I'm also stating that the player population will contradict itself as different players have remarkably  different and exclusionary feelings of any given thing.  Which side do you pick if there is no majority, all sides contradict all other sides, and no one is right or wrong?

22 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

I cant give you an exact percantage, but that is not really the point here right. This point will depent on a lot of variables, that does not mean that the point does not exist.

This really is an important point, because there is no majority.  So what is a good percentage of players to ignore?

22 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

Lets me ask a few question, do you think a weak (performancewise) class should be buffed even if 99 percent of the playerbase hates playing against it?

Do you think their is an objective measure of when a class is strong or weak? if yes what is that measure?

As for objective measures.  Most obvious are the data collected from the servers of the player community's gameplay.  Also, the development tools used to test for quality control.  I am now going to assume that ArenaNet has other development tools to test for the efficacy of player-controlled mechanics.  I believe this to be a reasonable assumption as to decide otherwise is to assume the incompetency of ArenaNet.  

There are objective data sets not accessible to the player's client.  Don't think of objective gameplay balance only in terms of what you experience in the client-version of the game.  Think of it in terms of the lines of code and testing of uses.  When you want structural improvements, you want to analyze the structure.  Limiting the analysis to a single-sided photograph that contains no useful information regarding the structural forces at work isn't the way to go.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Rogue.8235

[Apolo.5942]

41 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

There are objective data sets not accessible to the player's client.  Don't think of objective gameplay balance only in terms of what you experience in the client-version of the game.  Think of it in terms of the lines of code and testing of uses.  When you want structural improvements, you want to analyze the structure.  Limiting the analysis to a single-sided photograph that contains no useful information regarding the structural forces at work isn't the way to go.

 

Yes there are, there is also a very detailed history of players complaining about balance issues, being ignored and then after the situation is untenable, they come up with measures like these.

I stated it before, Mirage was a problem from minute one, and it was rightfully decried by the player base from the beginning.

Where was the testing?, if they have and actually listened to this supposed data, how come this did not throw up a bunch of red flags while in development.

The only conclusion possible is that either they dont actually have this data or they dont pay attention to it until it becomes a critical issue or they are grossly biased.

And i say again, this same case can be made for the current state of WARRIOR, just in the other direction and it being nerfed into the ground.

[Rogue.8235]

4 minutes ago, Apolo.5942 said:

 

Yes there are, there is also a very detailed history of players complaining about balance issues, being ignored and then after the situation is untenable, they come up with measures like these.
I stated it before, Mirage was a problem from minute one, and it was rightfully decried by the player base from the beginning.
Where was the testing?, if they have and actually listened to this supposed data, how come this did not throw up a bunch of red flags while in development.
The only conclusion possible is that either they dont actually have this data or they dont pay attention to it until it becomes a critical issue or they are grossly biased.
And i say again, this same case can be made for the current state of WARRIOR, just in the other direction and it being nerfed into the ground.

 

There is a very detailed history of players on the forums not agreeing to anything and contradicting each other about the state of the game.  You then assume ArenaNet is either flagrantly fraudulent in their business processes or genuinely incompetent to the point that a child could do better.  Neither is a reasonable assumption.  This is based on your statement:

"The only conclusion possible is that either they dont actually have this data or they dont pay attention to it until it becomes a critical issue or they are grossly biased."

 

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/professions/mesmer/Stress-Test-Mirage-Open-world

I see conflicting reports from players pertaining to the mechanics of Mirage.

 

As for the adjustment of the mirage mechanic itself.  Your post pointed out how the mirage, at face value and at release, had offensive capabilities with flawless defense.  I agree that this was one particular oversight by ArenaNet.

However, this one instance does not invalidate the entire process of objective, evidenced-based balancing.  If we were to invalidate any process based on one instance of human error, no process is valid.  Therefore, the invalidation in the instant case is not warranted.

 

As far as biases.  I seriously don't understand how players can possibly imagine that developers of a game have preferences to any particular function in that game.  You do realize that is what the game is right?  Lines of code.  Are you seriously insinuating that the programmers of ArenaNet have a favorite line of code?  That is what the classes are to them because that is what it actually is from a development standpoint.  Don't project your personal inclinations like this.

[Gwaihir.1745]

Anet went from 'wed like to do smaller, more frequent iterative balance changes' a year ago to 'we just dont do balance no more'.

[Apolo.5942]

38 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

As for the adjustment of the mirage mechanic itself.  Your post pointed out how the mirage, at face value and at release, had offensive capabilities with flawless defense.  I agree that this was one particular oversight by ArenaNet.

However, this one instance does not invalidate the entire process of objective, evidenced-based balancing.  If we were to invalidate any process based on one instance of human error, no process is valid.  Therefore, the invalidation in the instant case is not warranted.

 

Please, we do not have to agree, but lets be real, Mirage is one of the Many many many bone headed moves Anet made that the community saw coming and they were unwilling to bend the knee until it was untenable.

As i said above, there is a long recorded history of Anet's assessment of balance being grossly out of line with players expectation, Mirage is not an exception, it was just one more data point. Again like the current state of warrior has been for months, since at least the stun = no damage patch if not before.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Apolo.5942

[Tseison.4659]

5 hours ago, ASP.8093 said:

The problem isn't just Infinite Horizon, it's that Mirage Cloak itself isn't just a dodge, it's the absolute best possible alternative to a dodge: just as good at evading attacks as regular dodging, but you have completely freedom of movement and interaction (with superspeed so you can run about as far as you'd dodge normally, if that's what you need), and it doesn't even cancel actions when you activate it. No other spec can use a dodge to stomp someone, to make a healing skill uninterruptible, to counter-burst you while effortless absorbing your own burst attempt.

 

That's a really cool design, and really fun to play — but it's also quite a mess to balance and the reason we've ended up with "one dodge" is that just being able to do two in a row is amazingly, amazingly good.

 

I really hate playing "One-Dodge Mirage" but tbh I feel like the alternative is probably a kind of "No-Dodge Mirage" where you get normal dodges and only get Mirage Cloak by fussing around with Mirrors.

I rather not “fuss around with Mirrors” and they should be removed from all skills that spawn them to begin with. If there really wanted to make things “unique,” then they can just replace F4 with Mirror Cloak that gives charges every X secs and then change F1-F3 so they aren’t just shatters and more so unique attacks, misdirection, break targeting etc… that you or your clones do.

[ASP.8093]

32 minutes ago, Tseison.4659 said:

I rather not “fuss around with Mirrors” and they should be removed from all skills that spawn them to begin with. If there really wanted to make things “unique,” then they can just replace F4 with Mirror Cloak that gives charges every X secs and then change F1-F3 so they aren’t just shatters and more so unique attacks, misdirection, break targeting etc… that you or your clones do.

I agree. Putting their various "clone shuffle" type utilities (that tend to get out-competed for skill slots by Blink or condi cleanse) into the F skills (thereby effectively taking away their access to standard shatters) would make the Mirage Cloak shtick more manageable.

 

(Which is kind of what you see Virtuoso doing now with its modified shatters. But I do think Mirage and Chrono are both far more exciting class concepts than "throw knives instead of clones" and it's kind of a shame they're stuck in the state that they're in, imo.)

[Spook.5847]

7 hours ago, ASP.8093 said:

Those "flow charts" give you more choices than many games' "trees," specifically because they are not trees, and do not hand-hold you and pigeonhole you as much as path-dependent ability unlocks in trees do.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with one big community as the default. Only a handful of servers had distinct "culture" and that was the result of purposeful stacking by guilds.

 

Queensdale has been massively improved by forcing "champ train" people to go do something else instead of crying about normal players breaking their sequencing in map chat. There are dozens of other maps with complex and lucrative metas designed to give people who want to do this kind of open-world farming actual challenges and actual rewards. And, for people who just desperate to level quickly, the game just *GIVES YOU* tons of free Tomes for your alts now.

 

Love to play the "I'm older than you!" card while arguing with other veterans of a nine-year-old game.

 

The previous generations of MMOGs had very different designs, including a ton of player-hostile design. And a lot of player base internalized that stuff as the one true way to build a game like this, even when it kinda sucked. I remember playing early GW1 and seeing a good number of players demanding the ability to "rest" between encounters (sometimes called "sitting" back in the day)… even though the game completely removed the need to spend 30-seconds-to-a-minute doing nothing — truly nothing — between fights by just putting you into quick auto-recovery mode as soon as combat ended. If you look at these forums you'll see people complaining that GW2 doesn't have endless "vertical" progression even though that's a major cause of burnout and content obsolescence in so many other games.

It really sucks trying to talk about perspective and compare games overall - along with gamer motivation, deliberate phsycological manipulation by game companies, and the overall decay of game quality over the years with people who don't have the experience and/or education to even see the points being raised.

 

Fact is; if you are younger, especially a lot younger, you have less experience. 

 

If you have only played this game, then you have no idea what game communities even are - much less how they have developed and evolved over 25 years, the conflicts between player motivations and game company cheapness/profiteering, and how certain actions by game companies produce better or worse results so far as QOL and overall "fun" - much of which in a good game is player interaction (and no, I do not agree that the "meta events" system in this game is any good for much of anything other than being a PIA as an example).

 

I am saying that, as a person who has played many games over the years, and who has dealt with many game companies and the personalities running them, that this one just isn't very good (three things i do like about it are the crafting system, teleport points, and the weapon-swap concept - too bad that was so poorly executed), and that the motivations and attitude of the people who run(ran) it, often suck.  I also hate - HATE - not having a customizable UI with hotkeys for my equipment and inventory usuable items

 

As for claiming "obsolescence"; you need to keep in mind that both EQ and WoW are both still very much alive, and even still putting out new content (keep in mind that at one time EQ plat was the most traded currency in the WORLD - and I mean IRL).  I cannot play them anymore as I find them dated, and especially EQ because it makes my eyes bleed, but for variety of classes, magic, pet classes, versatility of classes, and loot, EQ has this game beat down like a red-headed stepchild.  Hell, the skill trees in DDO are better than this trash.  LOTRO trees were also cool until they hogonenized it.  If you can find a private server with the origninal version, go check it out.

 

The tone of these forums also says a lot.  This game is dying.  As is typical, more and more defenders participate in an echo chamber, while most of the people who would speak against that sort of thing have already left, and very few ever visited the forums anyway (when they were having fun).

 

Nothing anyone says here will change anything.  Anet will never implement big fixes, does not care about your opinions concerning WvW or PvP (or PvE for that matter) and will just continue to pump out junk in the store, and as "expansions" so long as folks give them $.  But,  as the amount of that $$ goes down, they will continue to cut staff, and automate more and more until they eventually sell the system off to some Korean in a basement.

 

But hey, some people are perfectly happy to eat at McDonalds every day - just don't try and convince anyone else it's fine cuisine.

[yann.1946]

5 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

I contend that 99% of the player base will never agree on any subjective matter.  I also contend that even a majority will never agree on any one thing.  We're talking millions of humans (per ArenaNet).  This is why I bring up the questions of whose opinions are more important.  A utilitarian approach to balancing based on personal opinion will not really be feasible.

It's a hypothetical, please engage with it. Real world considerations come after that. 

Quote

I'm stating that the "most" in these statements won't be reached.  There are too many variations of personal feelings for there to be a consistent idea to work with.  I'm also stating that the player population will contradict itself as different players have remarkably  different and exclusionary feelings of any given thing.  Which side do you pick if there is no majority, all sides contradict all other sides, and no one is right or wrong?

First, please actually engage with the questions instead of completely sidestepping them.

Secondly you don't need a mayority though, you just need that the people who enjoy a change that they are a bigger group that dislikes it. 

In a world with perfect info we would only balance around feeling, your correct though that we can't have that info so we use proxy data. 

Quote

This really is an important point, because there is no majority.  So what is a good percentage of players to ignore?

No, it's an understandable but fallecious point. Your arguing the equivalent of purple not existing because I can't give the exact moment blue changes to purple 

Quote

As for objective measures.  Most obvious are the data collected from the servers of the player community's gameplay.  Also, the development tools used to test for quality control.  I am now going to assume that ArenaNet has other development tools to test for the efficacy of player-controlled mechanics.  I believe this to be a reasonable assumption as to decide otherwise is to assume the incompetency of ArenaNet.  

There are objective data sets not accessible to the player's client.  Don't think of objective gameplay balance only in terms of what you experience in the client-version of the game.  Think of it in terms of the lines of code and testing of uses.  When you want structural improvements, you want to analyze the structure.  Limiting the analysis to a single-sided photograph that contains no useful information regarding the structural forces at work isn't the way to go.

The it are objective datasets true, but that was not the question. My question was what are objective measures to measure the balance of classes. 

For example the most used dye is an objective dataset, but not really a useful metric to measure the balance of classes. 

On the other hand win rate might be useful to compare. 

 

So I'll repeat the question, what are the measures I need to look at to objectively see whether necro is stronger then guardian?

Edited August 30, 2021 by yann.1946

[Gotejjeken.1267]

22 hours ago, Telgum.6071 said:

Celestial buff, not acknowledging how OP Trailblazer stats are...

 

This will probably get ignored because it's true.  The Celestial buff was pretty huge...it is way too easy to build a char with 50% boon duration, 3k toughness, 2k power....

[Rogue.8235]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

It's a hypothetical, please engage with it. Real world considerations come after that. 

I really have no idea what to say to this.  Engage with the hypothetical while ignoring objective fact?  Isn't that akin to stating that we should debate on the notion that your premise is true regardless of actual existence?  If I missed the point of this statement please clarify.

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

First, please actually engage with the questions instead of completely sidestepping them.

Secondly you don't need a mayority though, you just need that the people who enjoy a change that they are a bigger group that dislikes it. 

In a world with perfect info we would only balance around feeling, your correct though that we can't have that info so we use proxy data. 

I merely addressed ideas in the order presented.  No sidestepping.  

The second point does address a majority.  If not a majority, then the majority of players will be disregarded.  Subjective opinions are so varied with massive gradations that they are unreliable.  If a change is made based merely on the opinion of a subset of players that are not the majority, how do you address the majority of players that don't share that exact opinion or implementation of change?

In a world of perfect information, we would already have the right answer to the question of balance.  It was William James that pointed out that humans do not have an innate ability to know when we arrive at the truth.

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

No, it's an understandable but fallecious point. Your arguing the equivalent of purple not existing because I can't give the exact moment blue changes to purple 

I am not following how that  applies to the current circumstance at all.  I'm arguing that subjective opinion is far to unreliable to be the basis for implementing mechanical changes to the game.  

In order to satisfy your analogy, I would have to be arguing that balance issues do not exist at all because you cannot identify common opinions.  This is not the case.  Balance issues exist and I'm positing that they must be addressed objectively, not on the basis of personal opinions that are unreliable.

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

The it are objective datasets true, but that was not the question. My question was what are objective measures to measure the balance of classes. 

For example the most used dye is an objective dataset, but not really a useful metric to measure the balance of classes. 

On the other hand win rate might be useful to compare. 

So I'll repeat the question, what are the measures I need to look at to objectively see whether necro is stronger then guardian?

ArenaNet has proven to use usage statistics as one of the metrics used.  Evidenced by their balance discussions.

Other objective balance-related data can be measurable effects of build combinations in various scenarios.  Exempli gratia, the amount of barrier points produced and the frequency of the barriers produced in relation to incoming damage given multiple different team compositions (both friendly and enemy) in a case study of Scourge.  Analyzing the effects of boons )both in duration and intensity) of compositions being analyzed compared to the duration of boss fights in raids.

These are just two examples off the top of my head.

The biggest thing is that I don't know the exact sets of data ArenaNet screens for, collects, and interprets.  This is information they will likely not reveal to the public as it may compromise their market positioning compared to their competitors.  Efficacy of data analysis is something companies do not share across most industries as that is a competitive advantage.

The objective data most useful for balance decision is not something players have access to.  Players do not have access to network data nor the source code.  

Players can bring to attention anything they perceive is far out of proportion.  Say if a guardian build is constantly healing the entire team to full health every 3 seconds, that is something that should be brought up and ArenaNet can analyze.  Basically, your calling for ArenaNet to objectively investigate something.  The emotional opinions surrounding the statement of over- or under-performance are not that useful.  The objective data collection and information analysis afterwards is useful.

 

I don't have an example of a game that balances mostly on subjective opinions of player statements on the internet.  If you know of one or several, please bring it up as that would give us something in context to discuss.  As far as I know, there isn't a game that does this.

 

Other than that, It is my opinion that game balance needs to be objective because subjectivity is too unreliable and balance changes based on such subjectivity is going to create more problems than it solves.

Your arguing, it seems, that balancing bosed mostly on subjectivity will net better results than objective-based balancing.  Again if I'm wrong please correct me.

This kind of discourse is applicable to many things besides video game balance.  Others are debating the merits of subjective and objective based decision making within a wide array of areas.

Also, I'm certainly of the mindset that if balance changes are what makes you hate playing a game, it wasn't going to be good for you to begin with.  Many other things have to be clashing for a person to get to this point and balance may not be enough to address those things.

 

Thank you for the clarifications, please advise again on anything I missed.  

Edited August 30, 2021 by Rogue.8235
stupid typos

[ASP.8093]

2 hours ago, Spook.5847 said:

It really sucks trying to talk about perspective and compare games overall - along with gamer motivation, deliberate phsycological manipulation by game companies, and the overall decay of game quality over the years with people who don't have the experience and/or education to even see the points being raised.

 

Fact is; if you are younger, especially a lot younger, you have less experience.

It's funny that you're talking about "overall decay of quality" when discussing a genre that started out as *absolute trash.*

 

UO was a giant pile of quirks and bugs, EQ was one of the most tedious games ever created, its coat-tail-riders like Anarchy Online and Shadowbane managed to promise the world and then just replicated the grind with event less variety or consistent world design (though it was pretty funny realizing we'd accidentally reinvented serfdom in Shadowbane), WoW ate everyone's lunch because it actually figured out how to do some of this stuff right but it's also a tedious chorewheel of a game by most standards (and a game that has reinvented itself, what, like, four times now to keep up with changing moods?).

 

You're putting on this whole "I'm an old salt, I know better!" act about patching away the QUEENSDALE CHAMP TRAIN. Six ears ago, cruel, money-hungry Anet viciously punished the community for its incredible creativity (running around in a circle and getting upset if newbies actually try to play on their map) and we must nurse our hatred like a viper forever!

[yann.1946]

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

I really have no idea what to say to this.  Engage with the hypothetical while ignoring objective fact?  Isn't that akin to stating that we should debate on the notion that your premise is true regardless of actual existence?  If I missed the point of this statement please clarify.

Yes, engage with the assumption that the premise is correct? After that we can discuss the notions of in real world implimantation.

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

I merely addressed ideas in the order presented.  No sidestepping.  

The second point does address a majority.  If not a majority, then the majority of players will be disregarded.  Subjective opinions are so varied with massive gradations that they are unreliable.  If a change is made based merely on the opinion of a subset of players that are not the majority, how do you address the majority of players that don't share that exact opinion or implementation of change?

Their are two distinct question.

What do we do with the part that does not care about a balance patch.?(They are neutral to the changes.)

And how do you figure out how big these groups are?

 

On the first question, they probably should be ignored. If they dont care about the balance change their enjoyment is not affect by it. 

 

On the second question, thats a more interesting point. And their is no hard line to draw inherently. Qualitative questionaires could be useful, general community response (both in game and social media)

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

In a world of perfect information, we would already have the right answer to the question of balance.  It was William James that pointed out that humans do not have an innate ability to know when we arrive at the truth.

Their is no right answer. Because stagnation creates boredom, thats why we have balance styles where things get buffed to be stronger to change up the meta.

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

I am not following how that  applies to the current circumstance at all.  I'm arguing that subjective opinion is far to unreliable to be the basis for implementing mechanical changes to the game.  

Well you asked the question about what percentage of the population we need. My answer is simply that i dont know, and this percentage might be fluid, but that does not mean the percentage does not exist.

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

In order to satisfy your analogy, I would have to be arguing that balance issues do not exist at all because you cannot identify common opinions.  This is not the case.  Balance issues exist and I'm positing that they must be addressed objectively, not on the basis of personal opinions that are unreliable.

You completely missed the point. Because im not saying balance issues dont exist, never claimed they did not. 

 

My whole point is that their is subjectivity inherent to balancing, and that in the end its both inevatible and not a bad thing.

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

ArenaNet has proven to use usage statistics as one of the metrics used.  Evidenced by their balance discussions.

Other objective balance-related data can be measurable effects of build combinations in various scenarios.  Exempli gratia, the amount of barrier points produced and the frequency of the barriers produced in relation to incoming damage given multiple different team compositions (both friendly and enemy) in a case study of Scourge.  Analyzing the effects of boons )both in duration and intensity) of compositions being analyzed compared to the duration of boss fights in raids.

These are just two examples off the top of my head.

No, the million dollar question. Why care about those metrics, what makes those relevant. Why not look at completion rates with specific classes. Why not look at amount downstates. When is a scourge which produces some support +dps balanced with a standard dps. 

 

Their is an inherently unavoidable as balance is also caring about which numbers matter.

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

The biggest thing is that I don't know the exact sets of data ArenaNet screens for, collects, and interprets.  This is information they will likely not reveal to the public as it may compromise their market positioning compared to their competitors.  Efficacy of data analysis is something companies do not share across most industries as that is a competitive advantage.

 

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

The objective data most useful for balance decision is not something players have access to.  Players do not have access to network data nor the source code.  

 

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Players can bring to attention anything they perceive is far out of proportion.  Say if a guardian build is constantly healing the entire team to full health every 3 seconds, that is something that should be brought up and ArenaNet can analyze.  Basically, your calling for ArenaNet to objectively investigate something.  The emotional opinions surrounding the statement of over- or under-performance are not that useful.  The objective data collection and information analysis afterwards is useful.

All information analysis has a subjective component. Even though raw data is in general objective, that does not imply that conclusion drawn from that data are, even stronger they never are. 

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

I don't have an example of a game that balances mostly on subjective opinions of player statements on the internet.  If you know of one or several, please bring it up as that would give us something in context to discuss.  As far as I know, there isn't a game that does this.

All games balance to subjective opinion to one degree or another.

For example in the cardgame hearthstone their was a card yogg saron. This card was mostly used as an hail merry, so was only usefull if you where losing. They nerfed it because the feeling of BS when people lost against such a card.

 

And a more gw2 example. I forgot when it was during the HOT years but dh traps where really strong in lower bracket pvp, but extremely weak at higher brackets. What do you think they should do to DH traps in that case.

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Other than that, It is my opinion that game balance needs to be objective because subjectivity is too unreliable and balance changes based on such subjectivity is going to create more problems than it solves.

Youre missing the inherent subjectively of balance, their is not objective balance.

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Your arguing, it seems, that balancing bosed mostly on subjectivity will net better results than objective-based balancing.  Again if I'm wrong please correct me.

No, my argument is that the goal of balance should be to increase the fun. That their is no true objective balancing and that these are relevant point to remember.

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

This kind of discourse is applicable to many things besides video game balance.  Others are debating the merits of subjective and objective based decision making within a wide array of areas.

I would argue that their always is a subjective part to design making. Namely where you decide about what data to care about.

 

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Also, I'm certainly of the mindset that if balance changes are what makes you hate playing a game, it wasn't going to be good for you to begin with.  Many other things have to be clashing for a person to get to this point and balance may not be enough to address those things.

Its never about single things though. Few players actually care about whether something is "balanced". They care about having fun. Im not saying we should just blindly go, OP said so so it must be true. Just that if their is a general outcry over something it might be worth addressing even if something technicly is balanced.

39 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Thank you for the clarifications, please advise again on anything I missed.  

 

[draxynnic.3719]

I tend to think of the mirage one-dodge thing as looking like they just did a quick fix in lieu of coming up with a proper rework. As is, the general principle of only changing numbers between PvE and competitive modes is... well, it's technically still holding, but it's a big enough difference that you can't really say you can go from PvE to a competitive setting while still feeling like it's the same profession. It'd be more in line with their philosophy to find a tradeoff that's workable in PvE as well rather than having such a stark difference between them (personally, I'm a fan of making mirage Distortion only a one- or two-second duration, but make Desert Distortion baseline), but we'll see if they do actually intend to come back to it, or whether they're happy to just leave it as it is indefinitely.

[Dante.1763]

4 hours ago, ASP.8093 said:

It's funny that you're talking about "overall decay of quality" when discussing a genre that started out as *absolute trash.*

 

UO was a giant pile of quirks and bugs, EQ was one of the most tedious games ever created, its coat-tail-riders like Anarchy Online and Shadowbane managed to promise the world and then just replicated the grind with event less variety or consistent world design (though it was pretty funny realizing we'd accidentally reinvented serfdom in Shadowbane), WoW ate everyone's lunch because it actually figured out how to do some of this stuff right but it's also a tedious chorewheel of a game by most standards (and a game that has reinvented itself, what, like, four times now to keep up with changing moods?).

 

You're putting on this whole "I'm an old salt, I know better!" act about patching away the QUEENSDALE CHAMP TRAIN. Six ears ago, cruel, money-hungry Anet viciously punished the community for its incredible creativity (running around in a circle and getting upset if newbies actually try to play on their map) and we must nurse our hatred like a viper forever!

Its kind of hard to take the mindset they have seriously.

"Anyone whos younger doesnt know." Yup. Okay. Sure thing bud. No point in having a discussion when you start a sentence off like that.

Nevermind that most younger folks grew up gaming and have played more games/put in more hours than most people. Ive certainly put in more hours into games than my parents for example.

Age =/= lack of knoweldge when it comes to gaming.

[Gehenna.3625]

17 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

No I specifically meant oppressive, as overpowered is a relatively objective metric. Is it above the general power curve of the game. 

Well, over-powered can relate to a subjective feeling as well. A lot of forums of games ask for nerfs of classes they encounter in pvp and lose against calling them "over-powered" because they can't beat them and that's subjective because when looking at it objectively there's no reason to call them over-powered.

17 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

While oppressive relates more to the feeling you get when playing against it. 

Well this term can be used objectively and subjectively as well and it's still an odd term to use, at least from my point of view. So for my understanding I'll just read it as meaning over-powered in the subjective way as I explained above.

[yann.1946]

2 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Well, over-powered can relate to a subjective feeling as well. A lot of forums of games ask for nerfs of classes they encounter in pvp and lose against calling them "over-powered" because they can't beat them and that's subjective because when looking at it objectively there's no reason to call them over-powered.

I would then argue that they are wrong in calling it over-powered when they actually mean oppresive (or something of the sort)

But as long as you understand what im talking about it does not really matter to me what you call it. 🙂

2 hours ago, Gehenna.3625 said:

Well this term can be used objectively and subjectively as well and it's still an odd term to use, at least from my point of view. So for my understanding I'll just read it as meaning over-powered in the subjective way as I explained above.

 

[Grand Marshal.4098]

Buff warr

[Rogue.8235]

18 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Their are two distinct question.

What do we do with the part that does not care about a balance patch.?(They are neutral to the changes.)

And how do you figure out how big these groups are?

On the first question, they probably should be ignored. If they dont care about the balance change their enjoyment is not affect by it. 

On the second question, thats a more interesting point. And their is no hard line to draw inherently. Qualitative questionaires could be useful, general community response (both in game and social media)

Their is no right answer. Because stagnation creates boredom, thats why we have balance styles where things get buffed to be stronger to change up the meta.

Well you asked the question about what percentage of the population we need. My answer is simply that i dont know, and this percentage might be fluid, but that does not mean the percentage does not exist.

My whole point is that their is subjectivity inherent to balancing, and that in the end its both inevatible and not a bad thing.

All games balance to subjective opinion to one degree or another.

For example in the cardgame hearthstone their was a card yogg saron. This card was mostly used as an hail merry, so was only usefull if you where losing. They nerfed it because the feeling of BS when people lost against such a card.

And a more gw2 example. I forgot when it was during the HOT years but dh traps where really strong in lower bracket pvp, but extremely weak at higher brackets. What do you think they should do to DH traps in that case.

Youre missing the inherent subjectively of balance, their is not objective balance.

No, my argument is that the goal of balance should be to increase the fun. That their is no true objective balancing and that these are relevant point to remember.

I would argue that their always is a subjective part to design making. Namely where you decide about what data to care about.

Its never about single things though. Few players actually care about whether something is "balanced". They care about having fun. Im not saying we should just blindly go, OP said so so it must be true. Just that if their is a general outcry over something it might be worth addressing even if something technicly is balanced.

The above quoted statements are ones I considered cogent arguments.  The idea of perfect imbalance comes to mind, which one statement you made alluded to.  I was arguing from the viewpoint of chess (perfect balance), and I'm convinced that isn't always the way to go.  Good points made.

Side Note: if you can come up with a way to have consumers happily engage with surveys there are many marketing departments across the nation that will want to hire you.  This is one thing I was never able to figure out, but sometimes go back to just to see if I can.  Everything I come up with will end up with consumers feeling like they have to do it or else they'll miss out, which creates a growing resentment.

18 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Well you asked the question about what percentage of the population we need. My answer is simply that i dont know, and this percentage might be fluid, but that does not mean the percentage does not exist.

Ah I get the confusion.  I never said that the percentage of players unhappy with X change doesn't exist.  My conclusion was that subjective evidence is unreliable, and unreliable data isn't useful for reliable information analysis.  Please note the past tense.

 

18 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

No, the million dollar question. Why care about those metrics, what makes those relevant. Why not look at completion rates with specific classes. Why not look at amount downstates. When is a scourge which produces some support +dps balanced with a standard dps. 

Exampli Gratia (e.g.) essentially means for example.  I was identifying two metrics as an example of objective data.  It was not meant to be an exhaustive list.  I chose the barrier example because of the recent flurry of posts concerning how overpowered scourge barriers are/were.  That is one way to measure how effective Scourge barriers are that can be compared to other quantitative data of the healing and support of other professions.  It is important because that is the crux of the complaint, that Scourge barriers are too effective.

Objective testing and analysis is conducted to account for as many confounding variables as can be identified.  So there is never an analysis of a single variable.

18 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

All information analysis has a subjective component. Even though raw data is in general objective, that does not imply that conclusion drawn from that data are, even stronger they never are. 

This is absolutely not true.  There are studies conducted every day that are completely objective.  There is an entire method that ia strictly adhered to for the sake of maintaining objectivity.  

Likewise, it is entirely possible to analyze game data objectively, without personal bias, opinion, or emotions.      I have had many data sets before me that I have objectively analyzed despite the very grim topic (one was the analysis of infant mortality rates within the context of receiving medical aid from neutral third parties or not receiving such aid or such third party aid being intercepted by hostile forces). 

 

Even so, I think you made good arguments for using subjective data to, in part, render balance decisions.  Again, perfect balance isn't always the goal.

[yann.1946]

5 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

The above quoted statements are ones I considered cogent arguments.  The idea of perfect imbalance comes to mind, which one statement you made alluded to.  I was arguing from the viewpoint of chess (perfect balance), and I'm convinced that isn't always the way to go.  Good points made.

Side Note: if you can come up with a way to have consumers happily engage with surveys there are many marketing departments across the nation that will want to hire you.  This is one thing I was never able to figure out, but sometimes go back to just to see if I can.  Everything I come up with will end up with consumers feeling like they have to do it or else they'll miss out, which creates a growing resentment.

Ah I get the confusion.  I never said that the percentage of players unhappy with X change doesn't exist.  My conclusion was that subjective evidence is unreliable, and unreliable data isn't useful for reliable information analysis.  Please note the past tense.

 

5 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Exampli Gratia (e.g.) essentially means for example.  I was identifying two metrics as an example of objective data.  It was not meant to be an exhaustive list.  I chose the barrier example because of the recent flurry of posts concerning how overpowered scourge barriers are/were.  That is one way to measure how effective Scourge barriers are that can be compared to other quantitative data of the healing and support of other professions.  It is important because that is the crux of the complaint, that Scourge barriers are too effective.

The choice of stats to look at is subjective. The notion that we should look at scourge barrier is a subjective metric. 

5 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Objective testing and analysis is conducted to account for as many confounding variables as can be identified.  So there is never an analysis of a single variable.

And how multiple unrelatable variables compare is a subjective assessment. 

Even in the most basic way, let's have a barrier + dps class vs a pure dps class. When these two classes are balanced how do they compare in damage, how much is barrier "worth". 

 

5 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

This is absolutely not true.  There are studies conducted every day that are completely objective.  There is an entire method that ia strictly adhered to for the sake of maintaining objectivity.  

You are missing the point, it goes about one step earlier. Why look at the question the study asked about and not another? 

That is where the subjectivity comes in. 

5 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Likewise, it is entirely possible to analyze game data objectively, without personal bias, opinion, or emotions. 

Yes and no, one's you have a dataset you can use statistical methods which are roughly objective (roughly because what thresholds of rvalus one picks is arbitrary in a sense), but what data to look at is a subjective opinion. 

5 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

    I have had many data sets before me that I have objectively analyzed despite the very grim topic (one was the analysis of infant mortality rates within the context of receiving medical aid from neutral third parties or not receiving such aid or such third party aid being intercepted by hostile forces). 

See above for the distinctions I made earlier. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

Even so, I think you made good arguments for using subjective data to, in part, render balance decisions.  Again, perfect balance isn't always the goal.

That last sentence was indeed what my original point was. 🙂

[Lincolnbeard.1735]

The problem with the one dodge isn't so much the one dodge but the years of nerfs prior to that.

ANerf caved in to every balance suggestion by the self-entitled "knowledgeable community" (a bunch of individuals who never played mesmer and thought they knew better than mesmers themselves), entire core traitlines got gutted because they were the problem according to this "community", changing their narrative after a patch hits to target another trait or skill meanwhile the mesmer themselves were saying numerous times how to correctly fix mirage and were mocked by this "community".

Compare critical infusion which was one survival tool of power mesmer, with similar traits of other professions and you'll see how unfair some of these stuff is.

[Genesis.5169]

People would rather lose to every other class in the game then mesmers, because most people cannot play them. People would rather lose to a necro then a mesmer.

 

If the class is hard to use and successful it will get alot of hate, look at thieves and mesmers, sure alot of folks dislike necro but the playerbase is so high for necro i doubt anet is gonna nerf them for fear of nuking the pvp population because they nuked almost every mesmer out of the game first with the chrono nerfs then with mirage, its a shell of it self, and requires 5x more effort to win with then any other class in the game, this isn't anecdotal i still play my mesmer not in ranked because in ranked ill just be a detriment to my team, Rogue decap and +1 better, Rangers, Revs, Eles do more damage, Warriors, Guardian, necros, engineers do more damage and are more tanky AND BRING team support. Oh lemme add single one of those classes are either AS tanky as or  more tanky then mesmers.

 

In all honesty I have 5 characters that i PvP with Gaurdian, Ele, Engineer, Thief, Mesmer all them impact the game far more then mesmers do i have no idea what purpose this class serves PvP outside of existing for others to hate so other classes can get cover.

 

Every single team utility skill mesmers have has been nuked to uselessness.

Time warp is dead.

Null field iss dead.

Galmour traits died.

Signet of inspiration is useless.

Chrono wells need to have shorter cds to be any kinda viable.

Veil died with the glamour perk

Medic Feedback just died

 

I think reflect bubble is all thats left and thats gonna go too soon.

 

As for 1v1 situations its actually worse at 1v1 because there is absolutely no class you can beat 100% of the time your an entirely pilot heavy class that can lose to everyone in the game super easily you HAVE TO BE the better player IN EVERY CASE IN EVERY ENCOUNTER THERE'S NOTHING IN THE SPEC THAT CAN CARRY YOU AND EXPLOIT WEAKNESSES OF OTHER SPECS.

 

Its just not the same for other classes man mesmer really got sent to the shadow realm and its so bad it has to be by design.

 

Yeah i mad mesmers are trash for pvp.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Genesis.5169

[Zenith.7301]

Don't you think it's fun to stack firebrands and scourges?

 

Isn't it great to always have 3 scourges, 1fb, and an alac renegade in every single fractal CM?

Edited September 2, 2021 by Zenith.7301