Guild Wars 2 Balance Philosophy

[Styopa.2538]

Just now, Gibson.4036 said:

A designer didn't like toolkits, and designed Mech to make sure no one would take them.

So "power budget" actually includes intangibles like "when did the nasty engineer hurt you as a child, and did a big green robot save you making everything good again?"

[Daniel Handler.4816]

14 minutes ago, Skyroar.2974 said:

One thing I would like to know more is also very specific, because, as far as I know, it has only been done... once?

Skill splits within the same profession that are done regardless of game mode.

Mesmer's sword #3, which is different when on a virtuoso. I can understand why you did it, but my question is, if the new virtuoso-specific functionality is so necessary for virtuoso's sword to function, couldn't that functionality be made universal, for the sake of avoiding unnecessary complexity/accessibility? Is the old functionality so important in the older specs that it justifies having two different functionalities at the moment, even within the same game mode? 

To answer your question. Yes. It is important to be able to juke and immobilize a target with the original version of the skill. The older specs have melee shatters. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Daniel Handler.4816

[Gibson.4036]

1 minute ago, Styopa.2538 said:

So "power budget" actually includes intangibles like "when did the nasty engineer hurt you as a child, and did a big green robot save you making everything good again?"

Perhaps not anymore, but evidence says it did recently.

[Zyreva.1078]

4 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

Minimizing Bad Choices

This is just another way of saying that we want as many build components as possible—weapons, slot skills, traits, etc.—

I like how gear is excluded, so i guess no plans on adressing all those garbage stats that - at least partially - are rendered useless by how overperforming cele stats are in both PvE and WvW?

Also nice to see that the game mode that fields by far the biggest number of different roles and playstyles sees the least consideration for said variety. Maybe it's time to rework the entire game mode (OS arena should work just fine for zerg vs zerg action, no need for the other WvW maps), so players aren't "tricked" into wrong playstyle choices by the game design.

Edited October 28, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Barraind.7324]

30 minutes ago, ArjukKagrim.6049 said:

Why does Mechas Shift Signet has 10 times the "power budget" than any other skill in the game? 🤔

 

Because for some reason, they didnt put the thing required to play mech in any game mode with boons onto a lesser trait.   Which means your desire to take or not take shift signet is irrelevant, it is required. 

 

And since its required solely for the line of text that should be a trait (stuck onto the one that says "you has a mech lol"), that gives you fewer optional slots, and it then has to carry even more weight. 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Barraind.7324

[Gibson.4036]

Why such large steps in one balance pass? Like massively hitting skills when you did the big self-sustain nerf? Or halving Specter's shroud?

With the goal of having more frequent balance passes, why not take something down in small increments, then see how they perform? Too often, the big changes intended to "bring something in line" instead cause players to drop it altogether.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

Hmm...

 

World vs. World (WvW)

WvW group compositions have a similar makeup to PvE group compositions, with a focus on damage dealers to deal damage and support characters to defend them. Stability is always in high demand and is essentially a requirement for every group.

Support

Support is a broad term, and there are a variety of distinct tools that can be the focus of a support build in WvW, including healing, condition removal, boons, crowd control, and other general utility tools. Most support builds bring more than one tool to the table, but it's important that a single build can't excel at too many things.

Damage Dealer

These are builds that primarily exist to deal damage, but they also commonly bring additional pressure tools such as boon removal or crowd control. As fights get larger, area-of-effect damage becomes more important and single-target pressure loses some of its value.

 

This already is concerning--the definition of 'support' here virtually conflicts with the 'holes in roles' philosophy because everything is named besides damage, which can still be built for in different ways (mostly support + condi damage).  

The definition of 'damage dealer' mentions that single target loses SOME of its value in larger fights--when it literally loses ALL value.  There is also no mention of ranged versus melee damage and which one is more valuable in terms of balance.

Also don't like 'similar makeup to PvE group compositoins', when I don't think that's the case at all.  PvE comps are built around skill rotations and mechanics, WvW comps should be built around group size not mechanics.  

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by Gotejjeken.1267

[Griifen.2473]

4 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

If one profession does everything and has no holes, there's no reason for players to play anything else.

Uhhh... You literally made mechanist that has perma regen with the heal signet, teleport, stun break, cc, boon strip, AoE and single target damage.... and mechanist dominated over 20% of the entire player base. Sure you've been nerfing it's DAMAGE, but you haven't touched the utility that mechanist has which means it still has has perma regen with the heal signet, teleport, stun break, cc, boon strip, AoE and single target damage.

How many years did we have firebrand, that could give stability, quickness, reflects, condition conversion, cc, fury, condition cleanse. What have you done about it? Ow that's right, you've ONLY reduced it's damage. It still gives stability, quickness, reflects, condition conversion, cc, fury, condition cleanse.

How many years did we have renegade, that could give stability, lifesteal, cc, alacrity, ranged damage, melee damage. What have you done about it? Ow that's right, you ONLY reduced it's damage by forcing it to take ritualist gear.. It still gives stability, lifesteal, cc, alacrity, ranged damage, melee damage.

Hmm, I'm detecting a trend that might cause fractal and raid groups to be completely lob-sided with a completely unequal distribution of class representation.

[MuscleBobBuffPants.1406]

5 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

 his is a living document; our balance philosophy has changed over the years, and it will continue to adapt as needed for the health of the game. When the philosophy needs to be adjusted, we'll communicate what is changing and why.

This document will cover some ideas that are not perfectly represented in the current state of the game. We'll be working to resolve any balance issues that don't align with the philosophy, but this is something that will happen incrementally over time.

 

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? "

 

[Shao.7236]

I think that it's very important that skill functionality across all game modes should be kept in check.

Whether it is from any game modes, having something that is unbearably buggy (75% failure rate) should be addressed in reasonable time.

I can only speak from Revenant Hammer skill 2 mostly being quite the broken thing of "my" profession, but there is plenty to go on about with any others as well that needs to be fixed ASAP.

Things that have wrongfully being given nerfs of values that create a dysfunctional skill/utility/trait should be tested with serious intend.

For example Warrior had to deal with a lot of underpowered durations/effects for a while and a lot of it was addressed which is good but to avoid what feels like bias, those kinds of changes should be to at least as many professions as you can reach so that the community as a whole doesn't have to constantly emerge with their niche issues that have plagued their gameplay for years to which some feel like there is bias.

Try to be as agnostic as possible with the changes and not leave things undone for so long, either do it as a massive patch or just don't until that massive patch is ready.

I have been waiting for nearly 3 years to have very simple things addressed and I'm running low of patience, so are probably many others.

Please, prioritize the functionality gameplay more within professions, carrying bugs around is a lot more harmful to the game than having to deal with an obvious map bug that many can alert in due time with.

[Rosey.1608]

Definitely appreciate the transparency.  Still not entirely sold on wanting to change scrapper gyros, though.  Also......the specter shroud nerf in PvE.....w h y is all I really have to say.  It's not really fun anymore when one wrong move sends me flying out of my shroud and my damage is decreased significantly because of it.

 

Otherwise, it is nice to see the communication.  Thanks for that.

[Gwynnion.7364]

So that was nothing.

[Griifen.2473]

5 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

After we have a plan, we design, prototype, playtest

Oops, you accidentally said that you playtest.

Sort of like how you "playtested" vindicator before the last update.

I think we can all agree that you should just remove that one word just so that there's no confusion whatsoever about what the balance team does prior to releasing a patch.

[mandala.8507]

All I can say is, I'm glad they said very little. Also, these comments ignoring how they said these are future-oriented philosophies and flaming the current state of the balance to discredit these philosophies is...interesting.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

@Cal Cohen.2358, I can't help but see that warrior was used as an example a lot in the stream. I can't stress this enough, don't start with warrior only to abandon this approach like with what happened with the "tradeoffs."

 

Can you provide some more insight to the power budget methodology please?

What does a skill with 100% budget available look like? 0.5 modifier, 4s CD, 3/4s cast time?

How much do added boons, conditions, and their durations affect the budget? CD? Cast time? Blocks? Evades?

How do profession mechanic skills play into this?

For the weapon bars, what is the total budget? Are the damages scored in isolation to the skill in question, or against the AA chain as a relative cost opportunity?

Being open about this would help us, the players, provide better feedback and suggestions. Not to mention it gives us a concrete way of evaluating skills for you in a crowd sourced and free manner. 

 

As always, thanks to you and the rest of the team for your hard work!

 

[itspomf.9523]

Thanks for the communication, but ... you spent a LOT of time saying absolutely nothing.

There's nothing in this document which is immediately, qualitative, quantifiable, or actionable -- all of it works around a nebulous view of something which now appears to have a changing baseline, depending on the game mode, profession designs, and some equally mutable "roles" which frankly go against the core philosophies of Guild Wars 2 at release.  And that something isn't clear; all you've given us is a lot of verbigeration of comforting platitudes and vagarious statements.

While I'm glad that something is ultimately being said, it's still unclear what this design philosophy will entail and achieve when your own stated goals are in direct contention with the game in its current iteration.

[Subli.8217]

1 hour ago, Bookah pls.9352 said:

Hello, when do reapers get to spend the rest of their tickets?

I think the issue is that reapers never won any tickets 💀

[anbujackson.9564]

First of all, thanks for your time and communication. There are two things I would like to point out:

1. Doing both quickness and alacrity isnt really a bad thing. Consider the playrate of chronomancers after EoD launch or before even. No one bothered to play it because you still needed a healer that also provides boons since chronos only other boon was aegis. Why not give chrono, the time mage, the option to provide both but remove all others boons instead? Inspiration chrono with 100% boon duration doesnt do much damage and like I said, you still needed a healer that provided every other boon. Think about it, chrono essentially provides better spots for druids and also tempests (who can take their aura heal) as viable builds. Chrono playrate died down completely. People were playing offensive hybrid and healer support since years now. And chrono + healer is the lowest damage out of all.

 

2. Sadly you didnt adress what levels of dps you consider to be normal. What should a melee dps pull, what a ranged one? Should a hybrid dps really deal almost as much dps as a pure dps? Can bosses even keep up with your ideals? The damage in addition to support is so strong that only the newest content provides any challenge.

[itspomf.9523]

1 minute ago, Sublimatio.6981 said:

I think the issue is that reapers never won any tickets 💀

Tickets were rescinded to make way for Scourge Harbinger.

[Gibson.4036]

9 minutes ago, itspomf.9523 said:

Tickets were rescinded to make way for Scourge Harbinger.

New expansion e-specs get to beat up the old ones and take their tickets.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Gibson.4036

[lehmunayde.1746]

I think you guys did a great job of being really clear and transparent, but it felt like more of an explanation of a basic 'how to' of balancing rather than something specific to GW2. There wasn't much relation of what you were saying to what we actually see in game- for example, you could have addressed how Mechanist has had a far more liberal power budget applied to it than, say, Warrior specs. I'm sure many people watching the stream/reading this are familiar with concepts like power budget and so on, so it would have been good to just very briefly explain what it was, and then relate it to public opinion on classes like Ele, which I think people feel is too harshly budgeted.

 

I was hoping for more of a review of the state of balance as it stands, and maybe a glimpse into the future ("we want to target classes X and Y to bring them in line with A B and C"), but maybe I misinterpreted your intentions. Would definitely be nice to see you have an honest and open discussion about your thoughts on how class balance is right now, in GW2, and what we can expect to see in the future.

[Gwynnion.7364]

As high level summaries go, that was right up there with, "Games should be fun!"

 

"Roles exist."

Yes, obviously.

"Mastery should be rewarded."

Okay.  How?

"We have a profession wide budget for abilities."

Okay.  Cool.  How is that weighted?

"Some things don't currently line up with our philosophy."

Okay.  Examples?

"See ya next time!"

[Luvi.2581]

11 minutes ago, itspomf.9523 said:

Thanks for the communication, but ... you spent a LOT of time saying absolutely nothing.

There's nothing in this document which is immediately, qualitative, quantifiable, or actionable -- all of it works around a nebulous view of something which now appears to have a changing baseline, depending on the game mode, profession designs, and some equally mutable "roles" which frankly go against the core philosophies of Guild Wars 2 at release.  And that something isn't clear; all you've given us is a lot of verbigeration of comforting platitudes and vagarious statements.

While I'm glad that something is ultimately being said, it's still unclear what this design philosophy will entail and achieve when your own stated goals are in direct contention with the game in its current iteration.

Makes me nervous for if guild wars 3 is ever a thing. Guild wars as a series used to be unique, but they seem so determined to take that away from the game, it's heartbreaking.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Luvi.2581

[otto.5684]

Nice. Concise, easy and inoffensive. It has no depth and I was not expecting any. Anyone who played the game for a while know this already.

 

I was more interested in more meaty stuff, but I guess every Tom, kitten and Harry gonna throw their 2 cents, and claim Anet is clueless about whatever. 

[Marxx.5021]

All classes have the ability to deal, damage, tank and heal. A balance philosophy that defines roles but doesn't have the goal to give every class at least one viable spec/build for every role is bad. It leads to class stacking and less diversity.