What needs to be addressed about balance philosophy

[Zaret.1450]

7 hours ago, Salt Mode.3780 said:

Every point you made seems to be basic knowledge to players to actually play the game. Again perhaps the devs need to spend more time playing their game to understand what changes need to be made. 

I hate bringing other MMO into the conversations but there is a reason why FFXIV devs are widely respected across many MMO platforms, its because they actually do their own raids, cap out their weekly currencies, play PvP to know what changes are needed to be made. Which is why every single time they have a patch note it touch base across ALL aspects of the game and balance accordingly. 

Again has an ANET dev ever step foot into sPvP? I can't recall the last time I saw a ANET tag in WvW. You don't play your own game once in a blue moon and suddenly know what needs to be changed. 

Remember ANET wanting to remove AI aspect part of the game...? Due to this logic some class suffered but now suddenly they are ok with Mechs with AI combat? I can't recall how many times they have shot themselves in the foot and they simply dont care.

now that you mention that... all anet streams are of art and painting and such things right? why dont they do a stream of talking with the devs while the devs play diferent game modes? i think more people would be interested in seing the devs play, asking why something works that way, telling a dev, hey i tried this and it feels strange, or theres this bug and then seing the dev triing it themselves, it would be a huge increase in devs popularity, clarity, and we would put more hope on them.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

Credit to Ashgar for this one.

 

#24: We now have elite specs with poor support options, and we also have elite specs with great support options.  However, either there is little to no difference in how high their damage output is, or the damage output of the elite specs with quickness/alacrity far outpace the damage done by elite specs with neither.  How is this regarded in balancing?  Is this considered a problem, or is there some other metric that is used to balance those elite specs?

[draxynnic.3719]

For the record, I got the 'beat a dev in PvE' achievement... last conquest season I think, maybe the season before? They weren't playing guardian or engineer, though, so probably not part of the balance team.

[eXruina.4956]

they could check out the interview with chris wilson and josh strife hayes, that'd be a good start, great foundation and material right there.

 

gw2 balance, specially in competitive modes, has been consistently bad, and i don't believe its a coincidence.

 

10 years is a long time for it to be consistently bad, for nothing definitively positive to have happened.

 

there has to be a common denominator, it isn't just coincidence after 10 years.

[Aedil.1296]

On 7/12/2022 at 12:10 AM, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

This isn't a thread about what balance changes should be made, but rather about what the upcoming balance philosophy should address.  One of the most frustrating thing about making suggestions to improve the game is that we players have little to no knowledge about the overall vision, goals, and methods that Anet has.  Our ideas could be accepted or rejected silently, regardless of their quality, depending on the vision that Anet has.  It's like playing a game of darts blindfolded.  So, I encourage everyone to propose a series of questions and ideas that Anet should consider when hammering out an overall vision for profession balance.  I'll start, in no particular order:

1. Intra-profession balance.  How are the elite specializations and core regarded in respect to another.  Is a profession and all of its parts seen as a whole, or are individual elite specializations considered by themselves when evaluating a profession.
2. How does the scattered ownership of expansions packs and the different tools available to players affect balance decisions?
3. How is a profession or elite specialization considered imbalanced?  What is the metric used to determine this?  Is it representation in content, benchmarks on a golem, overall performance on specific bosses, overall performance on all bosses, tournament wins?  Do the developers just crash each profession against one another and see how they fare?
4. Solo vs. group PVE performance.  The tools available to each profession vary wildly in value depending on how many players are nearby and how many of them are running buff builds.  How are professions judged when in the overworld?  Are professions balanced around how they perform while alone?  Is the baseline how fast, or how safe, a profession can complete content, or is overworld content considered too easy to regard? 
5. The divide between strike and condition damage.  Are they considered balanced currently?  What is the standard used to determine the overall performance between the two, and what are the justifications for their differences?
6. Sustainability and Durability vs performance.  AKA the Elementalist question.  How is the fragility of a profession considered when making balance decisions between the game modes.  We already know that you don't regard complexity as a justification for performance, but do you consider frailty?  Is the balance done around versatility, damage, mobility, or the volume of boons and conditions that a profession can output?
7. The social hurdle.  To what degree does social acceptance of a profession factor in to how a profession is balanced?  Not just in raids, but in PVP and WvW as well.
8. Crowd Control and Stun Breaks.  What are the determining factors when deciding how much crowd control a profession gets.  Are certain professions to be themed around having good quality CC?  Same question with stun breaks.
9. Invulnerability and sustain.  How is self-healing and other-healing regarded when balancing a profession?
10. Combo fields and finishers.  What determines the overall effectiveness given to each type of finisher, and how highly are they considered when adjust skills?
11. Group support.  What is considered the standard amount of boons and uptime considered for each profession.  How is the overall damage output and versatility considered in comparison to pure DPS builds on the same profession?
12. Gear diversity.  Is this considered to be important across game modes, and why.
13. Profession identity.  What is being done to ensure that a profession has a unique feel and role to their play?  Is game content designed with the intention that certain professions be used in specific places?  How is the demand for a profession considered?  Is there any solution for the growing homogeneity of the professions?  
14. PVP and WvW roles.  What are the soft roles that each profession is considered to fill, if any at all?  Are duels and solo performance considered for balance?  If not, what are the standard group sizes that a profession is balanced around?
15. Complexity.  How is the skill ceiling of a profession rewarded?  This also ties into accessibility, with how easily a new player can play and learn a profession.
16. Mobility and forced movement.  How is the mobility, or the lack thereof, considered when balancing PVE and PVP content?
17. Range vs. Melee.  How is the damage output between the two styles considered in the different game modes?  What are the intended tradeoffs for each?  Is the current level of projectile destruction/reflection in PVP and WvW intended?
18. Boon removal, theft, and corruption.  How is boon hate and boon spam regarded in this game?  Are we at acceptable levels of each?
19. Skill Queueing and Skill Interruptions.  How is it decided which skills should pre-empt one another?
20. Is the potential to acquire loot and rewards considered when designing each profession's skills?
21. Finally, what are the guidelines, if any, that are given to each developer around how they balance a profession?  Is there a tight control on balance philosophy, or are the developers largely given independence when making balance decisions?

I'm certain there are many more questions to be asked.  However, my brain is melting.  Now, preferably, the answers to these questions would include metrics and more concrete information.  Answers such as "We changed it because we felt like it needed changing," and "This non-specific issue is important to us and we are always thinking about it," might as well be silence.  Now, I open the floor to you guys.

Sorry but have u totally missed the Anet devs discord scandal? 

They do balance according to the classes they like/play or depending on what certain top players they talk to tell them. 

They don't have have a full clear vision that embraces all classes. I thought this was clear to everyone now? I mean...compare any Ele spec to Mechanist for example? Or compare warrior to guardian? 

 

[Serephen.3420]

11 minutes ago, Aedil.1296 said:

Sorry but have u totally missed the Anet devs discord scandal? 

They do balance according to the classes they like/play or depending on what certain top players they talk to tell them. 

They don't have have a full clear vision that embraces all classes. I thought this was clear to everyone now? I mean...compare any Ele spec to Mechanist for example? Or compare warrior to guardian? 

 

I think you forgot about the follow-up to that and how they are working to make sure they don't repeat that mistake.

[Aedil.1296]

23 minutes ago, Serephen.3420 said:

I think you forgot about the follow-up to that and how they are working to make sure they don't repeat that mistake.

Please enlighten me. I just rage quit after that and came back only recently to check the Ele staff buffed update, so I haven't really followed gw after that, couldn't care less after 9 years of balance patches done that way. 

[Serephen.3420]

13 minutes ago, Aedil.1296 said:

Please enlighten me. I just rage quit after that and came back only recently to check the Ele staff buffed update, so I haven't really followed gw after that, couldn't care less after 9 years of balance patches done that way. 

That's fair enough, at work though so can't really dig it up but I'd recommend checking out some earlier dev posts via dev tracker to catchup on what's been said so far.

[draxynnic.3719]

One of the big ones is that they've recognised that balancing based on optimal conditions was a bad idea, so they're going to at least try to balance based on realistic output instead.

Edited September 5, 2022 by draxynnic.3719

[eXruina.4956]

8 hours ago, Serephen.3420 said:

I think you forgot about the follow-up to that and how they are working to make sure they don't repeat that mistake.

empty promises until proven otherwise by results. 👎

 

and in this matter i think we would all appreciate a more well balanced game. 🙏

 

that aside everything else in the game other than balance has been awesome. 👍

[otto.5684]

15 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

One of the big ones is that they've recognised that balancing based on optimal conditions was a bad idea, so they're going to at least try to balance based on realistic output instead.

I hope this is why the canceled the mirage nerf, cuz it was only putting the supposedly high dps in super optimal condition, like boss not moving and attacking very quickly. 
 

16 hours ago, Aedil.1296 said:

Sorry but have u totally missed the Anet devs discord scandal? 

They do balance according to the classes they like/play or depending on what certain top players they talk to tell them. 

They don't have have a full clear vision that embraces all classes. I thought this was clear to everyone now? I mean...compare any Ele spec to Mechanist for example? Or compare warrior to guardian? 

 

Honestly, this is a over exaggerated. Sure, somethings were damming, but much was misunderstood or taken out of context. And taking this as Anet “design philosophy,” is way out there. 

 

And hot take here, PvE balance is the best it has been, few months after an expansion. Sure, many things are still not where they should be. However things are moving in the right direction. Example, warrior, worst class.  Now, it has a competitive pve build, semi functional support build and okay condi build. SB is getting there. Some weapons diversity is being added. Things are not all there, but all solid and significant improvements.
 

PvP though has been unplayable level of bad, since Feb 2020. Little has changes since. It needs a full rework on the Feb 2020 level, to be remotely playable.

Edited September 5, 2022 by otto.5684

[Radina.6057]

4 hours ago, otto.5684 said:

Sure, many things are still not where they should be. However things are moving in the right direction. Example, warrior, worst class.  Now, it has a competitive pve build, semi functional support build and okay condi build.

I just dont exactly see how promoting the "worst" class to "semi functional" is a success, when it was one of the two "major" reworks of the balance patch. The Quickness build is still much worse than QFB, especially thanks to stability/aegis cooldown and the way it gets provided. The damage Bladesworn is somewhat fine on the Golem. The rest of them are still hardly worth mentioning.

 

There is a decent selection of Support Specs now, but they all are no competition for FB, or Mech.

 

If the right direction is to give Mech a slight buff every balance patch, we are right on track.

If the right direction is finishing the work they started, namely balancing support builds, they are way of track. (e.g. Chrono, the other spec that got focused on, is still hot garbadge compared to the alternatives.)

 

What makes the whole situation so irritating is that the Soulbeast rework, that got released after the whole discord situation, was excellent and gave me and alot of other people hope. All we got since than is the usual hogwash.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Radina.6057

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

On 9/4/2022 at 11:05 PM, draxynnic.3719 said:

One of the big ones is that they've recognised that balancing based on optimal conditions was a bad idea, so they're going to at least try to balance based on realistic output instead.

This is a zebra-striped pill.  It's good that Anet has made a choice on the matter, and IMO it is the correct one.  On the other hand... it is disheartening that they didn't make a decision on this very important issue until two months after the June update.  I can only arm-chair so much on this but I would think that if handling and testing balance issues were even a part time job, this would've been hammered out within a few days at most.  A couple of several hour long zoom calls, maybe one big meeting after somebody came up with a series questions to debate over (LIKE I DID FOR FREE), or a dictation from the boss on what should be done... something at least.  It isn't comforting to know that this whole thread fell on deaf ears where it mattered most.  

Edited September 6, 2022 by Blood Red Arachnid.2493

[draxynnic.3719]

@otto.5684 It was the reason they cancelled the mirage nerf, and they also said they'd review other builds that were impacted by the same philosophy. That said...

3 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

This is a zebra-striped  It's good that Anet has made a choice on the matter, and IMO it is the correct one.  On the other hand... it is disheartening that they didn't make a decision on this very important issue until two months after the June update.  I can only arm-chair so much on this but I would think that if handling and testing balance issues were even a part time job, this would've been hammered out within a few days at most.  A couple of several hour long zoom calls, maybe one big meeting after somebody came up with a series questions to debate over (LIKE I DID FOR FREE), or a dictation from the boss on what should be done... something at least.  It isn't comforting to know that this whole thread fell on deaf ears where it mattered most.  

Better late then never. It's one of those 'the best time for this was a while ago, the second best time is now' situations.

Ultimately, the proof will be in what happens in the future, not what had happened before a big shakeup in how balancing is done.

[Cait Sith.4650]

6 hours ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

This is a zebra-striped  It's good that Anet has made a choice on the matter, and IMO it is the correct one.  On the other hand... it is disheartening that they didn't make a decision on this very important issue until two months after the June update.  I can only arm-chair so much on this but I would think that if handling and testing balance issues were even a part time job, this would've been hammered out within a few days at most.  A couple of several hour long zoom calls, maybe one big meeting after somebody came up with a series questions to debate over (LIKE I DID FOR FREE), or a dictation from the boss on what should be done... something at least.  It isn't comforting to know that this whole thread fell on deaf ears where it mattered most.

Hear, hear.

As simple as that.

With luck, after the October balance patch, or a few hotfixes later, we'll be more or less in the same state we were after End of Dragons released. Which means we might see some progress in actual balance in the first trimester of 2023. This when most of the issues with pre EoD specs were identified in 2019/2020, and the EoD ones in October 2021. Just a whole year to get back to the starting point.

'Tis but a scratch.

[captrowdy.9561]

This game is awesome except for the class balancing. Isn’t there like one guy doing it? For pvp/wvw. Like removing sigil swap for rev. What was the thinking behind that??

[Gibson.4036]

The acknowledgement that classes should not be balanced around their potential in top performing hands is great. Nice to see a core principle being articulated.

That in no way addresses the discord leak, however.

I appreciate the thorough list in the OP, but I don’t think any of it matters if it’s not clear that #21 is being aggressively addressed.

I’m not talking about any sort of discipline for the particular dev. I’d like to hear that ArenaNet leaders are taking a close and thorough look at how a culture of personal whim took root.

How did they get to the point where a dev would decide to make mace stronger than kits because he doesn’t like one of the core engie mechanics? Or buff mez staff because he doesn’t personally like using axe?

They completely swept this under the rug, which is not the sign of an organization that really sees there is a problem and is committed to addressing it.

Again, this is not at all about the individual dev. It’s about leadership, supervision, shared vision, and accountability within ArenaNet. 

[Hashberry.4510]

well the discord leak was nobodies business and really did not reveal anything that was not  already obvious. Really silly to focus on this.

[Gibson.4036]

7 hours ago, Hashberry.4510 said:

well the discord leak was nobodies business and really did not reveal anything that was not  already obvious. Really silly to focus on this.

I very much disagree.

Balance philosophy is meaningless if they are ignoring the company cultural issues at the foundation.

[Hashberry.4510]

Well I guess I can’t push this topic here, I ‘ll just say they haven’t ever given this as much attention as we would like. This looks like the level of effort they wish to spend, part of the plan I guess.

[otto.5684]

On 9/5/2022 at 9:38 PM, Radina.6057 said:

I just dont exactly see how promoting the "worst" class to "semi functional" is a success, when it was one of the two "major" reworks of the balance patch. The Quickness build is still much worse than QFB, especially thanks to stability/aegis cooldown and the way it gets provided. The damage Bladesworn is somewhat fine on the Golem. The rest of them are still hardly worth mentioning.

 

There is a decent selection of Support Specs now, but they all are no competition for FB, or Mech.

 

If the right direction is to give Mech a slight buff every balance patch, we are right on track.

If the right direction is finishing the work they started, namely balancing support builds, they are way of track. (e.g. Chrono, the other spec that got focused on, is still hot garbadge compared to the alternatives.)

 

What makes the whole situation so irritating is that the Soulbeast rework, that got released after the whole discord situation, was excellent and gave me and alot of other people hope. All we got since than is the usual hogwash.

I did not say things are great in pve, just that they are improving. And if compared to the last 3 years in PoF era, we are getting some serious improvements. However, things are not as bad as people try to paint them. No, if your build does not deal 37K+ that does not mean it is not viable. And on the support side especially, we went from 2 builds to multiple. And all support builds have been getting some serious improvements. We are not there, but in 1-2 patches we should.
 

And again, pvp balance is trash. And pvp is integral to many players. And Anet pvp balance changes have been scarce and mediocre for the last few months.

[Angesombre.4630]

On 9/7/2022 at 12:06 AM, captrowdy.9561 said:

This game is awesome except for the class balancing. Isn’t there like one guy doing it? For pvp/wvw. Like removing sigil swap for rev. What was the thinking behind that??

For the sigil I think they deleted it except in PvP (go figure why, probably for nerf) because in my opinion they just didn't want to go to the trouble of setting it just on the exchange of 2 legend and that it doesn't work when you change on the alliance, while they did for the energy. The class still suffers from a lack of alteration removal. In addition on the alliance they have increased the CD and energy costs with a legend that has no synergy between the two aspects on that same legend and the "Master" trait I had made a proposal on it, I'm not saying it's the best just an idea to open up a new perspective.

[Angesombre.4630]

4 hours ago, otto.5684 said:

I did not say things are great in pve, just that they are improving. And if compared to the last 3 years in PoF era, we are getting some serious improvements. However, things are not as bad as people try to paint them. No, if your build does not deal 37K+ that does not mean it is not viable. And on the support side especially, we went from 2 builds to multiple. And all support builds have been getting some serious improvements. We are not there, but in 1-2 patches we should.
 

And again, pvp balance is trash. And pvp is integral to many players. And Anet pvp balance changes have been scarce and mediocre for the last few months.

It's going to take more than that to show me that it's better, because it's not the small patch of August with a small up that will allow me not to see all the stupid or random modifications on the revenant for almost 3 years.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Angesombre.4630

[HowlKamui.5120]

For me, it will always be quickness and alacrity needing to have permanent uptime. If these two buffs are so "mandatory" then just make it baseline...

The effects of these two buffs on dps rotations when they have permanent uptime is very different from rotations without them. This makes it a barrier to entry into instanced group content, when your rotation in open world is different to your rotation in said group content.

 

Essentially, what you're practicing and comitting to muscle memory in open world content is "wrong" when you get to group content.

Edited September 8, 2022 by HowlKamui.5120

[Kalthea.4326]

47 minutes ago, HowlKamui.5120 said:

For me, it will always be quickness and alacrity needing to have permanent uptime. If these two buffs are so "mandatory" then just make it baseline...

The effects of these two buffs on dps rotations when they have permanent uptime is very different from rotations without them. This makes it a barrier to entry into instanced group content, when your rotation in open world is different to your rotation in said group content.

 

Essentially, what you're practicing and comitting to muscle memory in open world content is "wrong" when you get to group content.

Aye, I said as much myself over at

Too many powerful boons that are essential to the end game, and make balancing a horrible nightmare so long as they exist with permanent uptime as an option.