Guild Wars 2 Balance Philosophy

[Raim.6123]

You need to consider making Alacrity and Quickness generation more passive in builds. Its bad design to have talents that 'glue' Alacrity onto existing skills that you now push on cooldown, ignoring their original effects in favor of 100% Alacrity uptime. This is why people like Mechanist so much. They can freely choose their skills because their rotation almost passively provides the boons. Also, the effects of said two boons should be reduced and/or spread out as to make them feel less mandatory.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Raim.6123

[HotDelirium.7984]

5 hours ago, Barraind.7324 said:

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?

 

Theres a lot of "design/balance philosophy" topics, and about 0 of them were even mentioned.

Each of those subjects is under the heading of one of the slides which they don't have hours and hours of time to answer. Each one of your questions would take a minimum of 30 minutes talking to get to. The stream was about 40 min. WHICH of those would you like for them to answer?

[Infusion.7149]

30 minutes ago, A Hamster.2580 said:

Thank you for the transparency. The only concern I have is regarding the following

I feel it is too ambitious to try and ensure both at the same time. I think the goal of including an "LI" build for every profession should be dropped for the following reason:

Spoiler

1.) Even if you succeeded in creating an "LI" build for every profession, the players will gravitate towards one due to how word of mouth works. The player base as a whole will eventually all converge to the default "just gear up and play x" whenever a new player ask what profession/build is best. This contradicts the goal of creating build diversity. You can take a look at the introduction of rifle mechanist to see this is true. There were many other "LI" builds at the time, but everyone eventually recommended new players to play rifle mechanist.

 

2.) You are already trying to balance 9 professions with 3 specs each across 3 game modes. The history of this game indicates this is almost impossible. I think creating an "LI" build for every profession should at the very least be the lowest priority.

 

3.) The "LI" builds are for PvE, but most of PvE is already very easy. The only content the casual players might struggle on would be T4 CM's, Raids, and Strike CM's, but those are intended to be difficult challenging endgame content. I disagree on the philosophy that anyone that just reached lvl 80 should be able to jump right into those content and start clearing them one after another on day one utilizing an "LI" build. We already have emboldened modes for Raids, T1-T3 fractals for fractals CM's, and normal mode strikes for CM strikes to help new lvl 80's progress their skill level. We also have the new training category on the LFG that I see a lot more groups are using now.

 

4.) Most casual players will never notice the impact of playing an "LI" build vs a non "LI" build simply because they would not even have a dps meter installed. If they do have it installed, I can almost guarantee that they do not know how to interpret the data correctly.

 

There's "LI" builds for every class and content creators thrive on them (see Mukluk's build guides, Hardstuck "LI" competition, MrMystic's meme channel). Most tend to be condi and/or melee without that high an autoattack (~15K on average , while prenerf rifle mech was 28K with autocasts). The outlier with rifle mech was the amount of cleave it had in addition to autocast skills putting it over the top. That meant it could also ignore positioning for the most part unlike most power builds.

Typical "LI" builds:

• Condi soulbeast with single shortbow -- very old example
• Condi scourge , which doesn't have high autos or cleave unless you use F skills
• Condi ren dual shortbow with upkeep on mallyx now that sigils were reverted to apply when swapping legends
• Condi virtuoso with a dagger --- slightly overperforming if you just auto
• Condi specter in general --- zero cleave on scepter while autoing
• Condi staff mirage
• Condi firebrand variations that don't use the tomes --- melee mostly if you don't use tomes
• Condi willbender with specter camp rotation I believe at one point existed
• Condi tempest (some variations) with fire camping rotation
• Power soulbeast variations so long as "Sic Em" is used properly and flanking is maintained, due to the change to OWP that made it a 1 second interval
• Power herald with upkeep skills (melee) --- coined name autoattack herald
• Power vindicator with upkeep skills (melee) to an extent
• Power berserker with axes for Decapitate (melee)
• Power staff daredevil (melee) --- 22K+ autos for a while now

What the low intensity builds bring to light is the amount of damage utility skills bring in some cases.

The best thing Arenanet can do for elementalist specifically is to up the autoattack back on Catalyst and revert the hammer auto in PVE. Most high end players or the rotation adept aren't going to be using many autoattacks but it matters quite a bit for people wanting simpler builds. There's simple things that can be done that won't increase the damage ceiling but will improve play-ability for the general playerbase such as Empowered Empowerment buff changing per stack. I think that is what Arenanet is trying to imply here.

----

Another thing that is worth mentioning is existing older skills that have not held up to new skills or new balance paradigms.
Think about "Fear Me" or "On my Mark" in most cases, along with Ice Drake Venom , Imminent Threat, "Hold the Line", "Suffer", etc. There is not much math needed to realize these skills need updates. There's other skills that have been used prior but made obsolete by bugfixes or other reasons such as Flame Trap on ranger and Well of Action which was hard nerfed.

There's also scenarios Arenanet can't claim diversity because you need to deal with a specific effect : i.e. on Matthias you need reflect so you're far more inclined to bring Firebrands and Mirages/mesmers with feedback.
 

[Barraind.7324]

11 minutes ago, HotDelirium.7984 said:

Each of those subjects is under the heading of one of the slides which they don't have hours and hours of time to answer. Each one of your questions would take a minimum of 30 minutes talking to get to. The stream was about 40 min. WHICH of those would you like for them to answer?

 

Which is why I said this isnt a discussion on balance philosophy, but an overview of what they consider when looking at balance philosophy.

 

One of those doesnt tell us anything except "these exist", one actually gives useful information about how they look at and weigh each of those aspects.

 

People dont care that the dev team thinks "PvE has 3 roles", people care how those roles are supposed to actually work, and what its supposed to generally feel like, and how poweris shared between or exclusively held in certain specs. 

 

What we got was a 45 minutes of reading a 2 page outline.  It was the agenda you e-mail people before the meeting, when you'd expect it to be the meeting. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Barraind.7324

[HotDelirium.7984]

6 minutes ago, Barraind.7324 said:

 

Which is why I said this isnt a discussion on balance philosophy, but an overview of what they consider when looking at balance philosophy.

 

One of those doesnt tell us anything except "these exist", one actually gives useful information about how they look at and weigh each of those aspects.

 

People dont care that the dev team thinks "PvE has 3 roles", people care how those roles are supposed to actually work, and what its supposed to generally feel like, and how poweris shared between or exclusively held in certain specs. 

 

What we got was a 45 minutes of reading a 2 page outline.  It was the agenda you e-mail people before the meeting, when you'd expect it to be the meeting. 

They might be able to go more in-depth to your liking but they also walk a fine line when it comes to what they might consider trade-secrets when it comes to gaming. They can't tell us everything which is why I think this entire endeavor is a bit silly because they will never satisfy certain players because they can't and won't go in-depth enough without risking reveals. I'd rather they just DO the balance and let it speak for itself.

[Vissarion.6509]

10 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

but we want to avoid cases where a skill simply has no relevant use case.

You described 85% of elementalist's utility and elite skills right there.

[HotDelirium.7984]

4 hours ago, Gwynnion.7364 said:

There have been multiple threads recently wondering about the current team's balance philosophy but the important questions are much more specific, e.g.:

• What do they think is broken and why, even if it's beyond the scope of the latest patch?
• How much of a difference should there be between LI and "mastery" builds?
• What role or roles do they think every elite spec is supposed to fulfill?
• What specs do they think are currently over and under their "power budget?"
• How is that budget weighted, e.g., power vs. condi, ranged vs. melee?
• Are power budgets allocated on a mode specific basis?
• How do they intend to make other classes relevant versus mainstays like Firebrand?
• What are their plans to fix classes with longstanding issues like elementalist?
• What do they think are "bad choices" that should be removed from the game?
• What are specific examples of player feedback they're taking into account?

Because "philosophy" is so vague, it lets them deflect with this type of feel good nothingburger.  For all we know, the November 29 balance patch has been in final form for months, based on considerations they don't feel like sharing with us.

These questions are so specific and with a team of around 4 or so I just have to assume they are working on all of that right now or have been working on it right now. That's like giving someone a job at a landfill of sorting garbage and not only being frustrated it's not done months later but that they don't know the content of metal for each soda can. I do believe each one of those questions will be answered eventually and its not anytime soon. We went from 'somebody" favoring classes and not taking balance seriously to having a dedicated team with passion and expertise with an actual living game philosophy in-hand. This is huge progress.

[HotDelirium.7984]

5 hours ago, MuscleBobBuffPants.1406 said:

 

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? "

 

They literally said that in the stream though. When future patch notes come out they will be detailing the philosophy and reasonings why. #activelistening

Edited October 29, 2022 by HotDelirium.7984

[HotDelirium.7984]

5 hours ago, mandala.8507 said:

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.

OMG right?!

Anet: These are our future philosophies that we will be implementing into the game and we will detail why in future patch notes.

Players: I just don't understand WHY these changes aren't in the game yet...

 

Anet: Feedback is an important tool to help gauge our efforts so continue to do that.

Players: We'Ve GiVeN EnOuGh FEEdBacK!!!!

[Dahkeus.8243]

I'd really love to hear more on what the goals are behind viability of core specializations vs elite specs.  A long time ago (pre-HoT or early HoT), it was stated that core specs were supposed to be just as good as elite specs, but that's clearly not been the case.  Are core specs supposed to just be a stepping off point for new players or is the hope to have them be part of the viable/meta builds to some extent?

[Batalix.2873]

Hey guys! I actually enjoyed the Livestream and think you guys are steering in the right direction. The one overarching feedback I want to insist on is that you should go, and go far with "holes in roles" (and in a similar vein, "purity of purpose").

 

Currently, an estimated 22 percent, 1 in 5 players, use Firebrand in raids. Another 48 percent use one of five ranged DPS builds (Virtuoso, Mechanist, Scourge, Renegade, and Specter). The latter issue is clearly a problem, but is pretty easy to spot as a solution--simply applying more of a "ranged tax" to DPS builds as needed to compensate for not needing to engage with melee mechanics. For example, the difference between the two purest sustained-DPS builds, Berserker and Virtuoso, is minimal, except one can do all of its damage at 1200 range. Berserker is at a distinct disadvantage for needing to dodge, so it is only fair to, while still respecting Virtuoso's pure-DPS style, pull its number down to reflect a lesser degree of challenge. (the reverse argument can be made by analogy between Weaver and Berserker, where Weaver needs a "piano rebate").

(Brief tangent while I am on this topic, the pure-DPS builds should all have weapons that work on both condi/power specs. Virtuoso gets this, but Berserker torch 4 should do comparable power damage to axe 5--an offhand that defines power builds regardless of especs and obviates Berserker's torch. Weaver is already kind of there, although I think part of it's "piano rebate" would be giving water and earth sword higher DPS.)

The former issue, that of why Firebrand (and Mechanist) are so disproportionately favored, is a bit more complex, but I think is well-understood in the frame of job identity and diversity.

As I see it, the most used (i.e. broken builds) in the game are also the worst at staying in the lane of a certain identity. While the idea of "role-specialized" specs like Druid/Herald, or "role-generalist" specs like Firebrand/Scourge had their justifications and criticisms over the years, the limitations represented by--respectively, introducing especs as a strong opening concept (HoT) and shoring up less damage-oriented professions with all-arounders (PoF)--are no longer necessary. Now that each profession has three especs and possibly more, it is okay to heavily tune back generalist especs (Firebrand, Scourge, Soulbeast, Mechanist, Specter) to have a narrower role niche, and push more especs toward unique niches that were/are overused for lack of comparables (Druid especially).

Using a historically bad example, Firebrand does not need to be "the melee damage-weapon" Guardian espec on top of having a literal library of on-command boon support now that Willbender can fulfill the DPS role with a much more robust kit suited for *that*. Firebrand can afford to narrow its scope to "boon support and healer", maybe retooled axe to be more about area control and moving enemies/allies with axe 3, while Willbender can be "melee DPS" and Dragonhunter can be "ranged DPS", giving Guardian players pretty broad access to role options.

In fact, I would argue it would just be good design at this point to pull a few especs back into stricter support roles just to give Druid some healthy equivalents, and discourage the game from devolving into "every spec is DPS". The more any game starts to reduce itself to a DPS standard and "streamline" things because players dislike the inconvenience of varied class design and functional tradeoffs, the faster job diversity and game feel drops.

But back to my main point, I think looking not just at "role" but "archetype" is where you may end up finding a lot of obvious balancing changes. I.e., what "archetype" does this espec communicate, and what is exceeded or not aligning with that role? Quick rundown of specs that really need to have a more focused identity:

 

Firebrand:

Archetype: Scholar, uses tomes/mantras to cast runic and verbal spells, high focus on boons and healing. On-demand, versatile boon application is a solid support niche.

Dissonant design: mid- to high condi damage on top of it's support role.

General solution: Lean Firebrand more into a Scholar/support role (which it wants to do) decrease its overall damage capabilities, particularly on axe (which make no sense for a librarian).

 

Scourge

Archetype: Priest

Dissonant/broken: varied support on top of high damage.

General solution: lean more into barrier, curses, cleansing/ripping, resurrection, lean away from damage. Let Reaper and Harbinger fill Necro DPS niches.

 

Specter

Archetype: Assassin

Dissonant/broken: high ranged DPS and robust support, seeing a trend?

General solution: Keep shadow shroud, shadowstepping, barrier. A simple option would be to either downtune damage or remove healing, it could go either way because of how much similar space it shares with Harbinger, which also needs a bit of focusing.

 

Mechanist

Archetype: Puppeteer

Broken: J-Mech nearly obviates player with auto-attacks and insta-boons, but on top of that player still has full weapons and utility to play with. It is tantamount to having a second player on autoattack, which is just too much damage (generally but also both at range) and flexibility of positioning.

General solution: Remove the player's ability to attack alongside their robot, instead have all the damage be dealt manually with weaponskills through the robot. Basically, consolidate all the agency into a single point of action (the robot) instead of two (robot and player), and create an interesting/unique dynamic where the player supports the J-Mech as kind of a reversed Gyro or ranger pet, while remotely controlling the mech as a ranged weapon and tanky shield. This reallocation of power to solely the J-Bot pretty much needs to happen to (a) bring Mech's total DPS and boons back down to something resembling a single character instead of two, and (b) create a meaningful "hole" in an espec that can literally do everything automatically at range without the player engaging the game at all. If "non-engagement" is Mech's archetype/gimmick, making technology to do the attacking for it, then the meaningful tradeoff should be that the player is left *much* more vulnerable to force some kind of gameplay loop (in this case, strategically maneuvering you and your J-Bot to protect your squishy self), where currently *there is virtually no gameplay loop*.

 

These are just a few of the examples that I think need a hard look (as compared to Virtuoso which is overplayed, but doesn't want to be anything more than straight-DPS so just needs a numbers tuning as a ranged tax). But two things I want to emphasize that I hope this post illustrates more generally:

 

1) Making even one of the above changes (Mech or Firebrand) would level the playing field better and open up viability for other especs. It is much easier to pinpoint why we have a few tall poppies and pointedly cut their heads off than try to bring 27 especs up to the same level of play while maintaining distinct game feels. (There are a few short poppies too, which I think merits the same approach, like making Dragonhunter more ranged or Catalyst less about weaving four different elements). But overall, more specs are well-designed than not, and we should be looking to fix outliers first, not aimlessly give everyone quickness or stability.

 

2) Framing balancing as focusing archetypes is very much in alignment with your "purity of purpose" philosophy on the scale of especs, and I think makes for a much more considered approach toward balancing. My point isn't that Mech specifically needs to be nerfed (even though imo it still really does), but that this kind of "archetypal" approach can be applied to a lot of the larger balance problems at issue and introduce elegant solutions to a good chunk of them with a clear vision that minimizes micromanagement. Scourge (e.g.) too powerful? Double down on narrowing its archetype. Chances are, if you stay true to the core archetype, most players will accept even radical changes because what they love about the class is preserved.

 

Firebrand axe no longer does damage but retains its "wand"/"crook" capabilities? That's okay, I spent most of combat using tomes and mantras anyway. My core job fantasy of being a book mage is untouched, because I still have a whopping 20 skills to swap between and play with outside of my weapon. Firebrand has so much granular and broad boon utility that it could do NO damage and still be a very good support job (particularly since even CMs can be cleared with 8-people with enough coverage of DPS and key supports). People would still choose to play a no damage Firebrand or Scourge, just like many choose to play a no damage Druid. And Firebrand is one of the few especs that is so overextended that it could survive such a nerf and still be playable.

 

Anyway, that constitutes my feedback. Thanks again for the Livestream, this does give me hope that you guys are on the right track and that in a few months the game will not be littered with Mechs. My parting advice is be careful with designing LI builds, make sure they have extremely limited functionality outside of basic DPS/heal mechanics. The community has shown that for every person who legitimately needs an LI build there are ten lazy veterans who use them as an excuse not to not engage with the combat system altogether. LI builds should be simple and sweet, decent self-sustain but lacking group support--anything more than that and you get Mech. (And, inasmuch as others in this thread have observed, LI builds have been an unintended but inevitable emergence of prior designs...they will happen anyway, plenty of options already exist, and I would err more on the side of culling, constraining, and curating them than deliberately designing or promoting them).

 

Looking forward to the upcoming months, all the best to you, your team, and your loved ones.

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by CourtJester.5908

[BumboJumbo.1308]

6 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

So wvw is only two roles, support and damage dealer, while spvp has five? 🥴

Ok, carry on with your boon ball balancing I guess. 🙄

P.S

Congratulations you already failed.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Shift_Signet

Signet Passive: Increases movement speed. Boons you gain are copied to your mech.
Signet Active: You and your mech shadowstep to the target location. Removes conditions on you and your mech.

Conditions Removed: 2

Movement Speed Increase: 25%

Breaks Stun

Range: 1,200

P.P.S

And pretty much this has only been applied to Mirage handicapping them of a dodge, and now waiting almost 3 years for a rework to get their 2nd dodge back, meanwhile you go and release another one dodge elite specs, only to see it doesn't work, and then decide 6 months later to fix it, before mirage gets their fix.

Mirage 2nd dodge when?

 

 

Responding to your first P.S. point:

I don't understand how anet failed in this case. That mechanist signet utility skill does 2 things: defence and mobility. This skill doesn't do too many things at all.

Responding to your second P.P.S. point:

Anet has said that they are trying to find a way to reimplement the 2nd dodge for mirage... (at the 16:00-16:30 mark)

Chill out.

 

 

[Xenesis.6389]

23 minutes ago, BumboJumbo.1308 said:

Responding to your first P.S. point:

I don't understand how anet failed in this case. That mechanist signet utility skill does 2 things: defence and mobility. This skill doesn't do too many things at all.

Increased movement speed.

Copy boons to mech.

Shadowstep.

Remove conditions on player and mech.

Breaks stun.

Too much, I don't care how you try to excuse it, too much in comparison to every other skill in the game.

23 minutes ago, BumboJumbo.1308 said:

Responding to your second P.P.S. point:

Anet has said that they are trying to find a way to reimplement the 2nd dodge for mirage... (at the 16:00-16:30 mark)

Chill out.

Tick tock tick tock, since feb 2020.

We've had near three years to "chill out".

Somehow a brand new spec gets made and then fixed in way less time than mirage did.

CMC hates mesmers, he's the one that removed the dodge in the first place.

Stop with the excuses.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Xenesis.6389

[BumboJumbo.1308]

53 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Increased movement speed.

Copy boons to mech.

Shadowstep.

Remove conditions on player and mech.

Breaks stun.

Too much, I don't care how you try to excuse it, too much in comparison to every other skill in the game.

Tick tock tick tock, since feb 2020.

We've had near three years to "chill out".

Somehow a brand new spec gets made and then fixed in way less time than mirage did.

CMC hates mesmers, he's the one that removed the dodge in the first place.

Stop with the excuses.

At what point would you consider that mech skill as enough, or just right? What would you change?

Ok... It seems like anet is having a hard time reimplementing mirage dodge back in, other wise it would have already been implemented.

[RAZOR.7246]

I totally disagree with their classification of roles, especially in the PvE meta. Or rather, I don't think this classification of roles is in any way accurate to the needs of a group or squad. After reading this, I can understand why there's so much imbalance in the current meta.

 

Quote

 

"PvE group compositions are typically built to maximize damage output through high might, fury, quickness, and alacrity uptime, with just enough support and defense to keep everyone alive.

Damage Dealer

The primary source of damage. Built to maximize damage output, they bring minimal group utility, though they may share some offensive boons in limited amounts.

Boon Support

A hybrid role focused on providing high uptime of key offensive boons, though a single build should not provide both quickness and alacrity. They also contribute to damage or healing in lesser amounts than dedicated builds for those roles.

Healer

A support role that focuses on keeping allies alive through defensive boons and raw healing. They may also provide some offensive boons to the party."

 

 

This is not how the meta works for Boon support and Healers. These roles are required to provide certain amounts of both offensive and defensive buffs in varying degrees. A single build not providing Alacrity and Quickness is absolutely the right move. However, to suggest that Healers provide defensive buffs and Boon Supports provide offensive buffs is just a huge misunderstanding of the way these roles work. In the current meta, Healer builds are generally built with maxed out CONCENTRATION being the primary priority and HEALING POWER a secondary priority. On the other hand, Boon Support builds are built to maximize DAMAGE primarily while balancing with just enough CONCENTRATION (secondary priority) to provide permanent Quickness or Alacrity with other boons, offensive or defensive, being provided in a limited capacity compared to Healer builds.  Your primary source of boons in the average group, both offensive and defensive, come from the Healer first and foremost because that's the class that maxes out their concentration. Your secondary support, i.e. the Boon Supports, fill in the gaps to top off boons. What has also been left out is how these 2 roles are also expected to provide the majority of CC for your party with the DPS classes filling in the gaps without having to compromise too much in Damage. It's painstakingly obvious from the description provided that group design in the PvE meta is not understood properly. If you're going to set Boon Supports to primarily provide offensive buffs and Healer with defensive buffs, what's going to happen is a more extreme version of what used to happen frequently before and what happens now in highly advanced groups. They just disregard the Healer because they have no need for defensive boons and concentrate on maximizing their group DPS. This is how you end up with groups that just use 2 DPS Catalysts for permanent Quickness or 2 DPS Renegades being able to fulfill Alacrity requirements. I understand now why there are both Healer and Boon Support builds that are so ridiculously inferior to their counterparts on other classes. These 2 roles should read as the following:

 

Boon Supports

A hybrid role focused primarily on dealing damage, albeit in lesser amounts than dedicated builds for those roles while providing a high uptime of key offensive boons (Quickness/Alacrity) and to a lesser extent, (Might/Fury). They also contribute defensive boons (Stability/Aegis/Vigor/Swiftness) and healing to a lesser extent. 

Healer

A support role that focuses on keeping allies alive through defensive boons (Protection/Resolution/Aegis/Regeneration/Resistance) and raw healing while also providing the bulk of uptime on offensive boons (Quickness/Alacrity/Might Fury) for the party. They are the primary source of boons, both offensive and defensive, for the party.

 

Both roles should have access to reasonable amounts of CC. NEITHER of these roles should provide both Alacrity and Quickness on a single build. ALL Healers NEED reasonable access to these defensive boons with Boon Supports having access to these defensive boons with a significant tradeoff in Damage. 

Instead, what we have is 1 class getting ridiculously easy availability of these boons on both Boon Support and Healer builds. and the rest not coming anywhere close. 

 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by RAZOR.7246

[Minion of Terror.1948]

I would like to Respond to this section of the philosophy.  

Quote

We want to design builds that allow players with a high level of mastery to demonstrate their prowess and be appropriately rewarded in terms of effectiveness. At the same time, we want to ensure that there are builds for every profession that require less mastery to be effective. These builds should allow players to succeed in parties and clear content, while still having room for them to improve their mastery over the combat system and increase their effectiveness.

 

To me this statement has the essence of being a CURSED problem.  This game has many different levels of mastery. First may just be "If i just give a new player a build and gear if they just Press all the buttons will they be effective" This ended up what power rifle mech ended up being. you could give a new player it. they press 1 and destroy everything much faster then anything else at that low level. On the other extreme you have. Understanding how you DPS is done. How to stack multiple effects from traits, runes, and sigils. Getting the best gear. Obtaining sets of Stat infusions and using food and utility that is very expensive.  Understanding the combo system. Then it is understanding your enemy. Each boss encounter. or even your opponent in PVP. At the highest level of end game PVE content people spend hours on the golem to try to max out as close as they can. One thing i know is apart of many high end rotations is Animation after cast canceling. to me that type of mastery is not fun. It is the kind of thing that i don't know if that should even be part of what should be considered a "High Level of Mastery" 

 

I know everything on this document is very general but i would even like to know what is the Actions Per Minute (APM) are you expecting from a low intensity build and at a build at the highest level of play.  Classes like Weaver and Condi Engi has been talked a lot about how many buttons you have to press to do high DPS. due to the fact that Weaver has to constantly change your elements and Engi having assess to 4 different kits.  You have a TON of skills but the DPS i have been able to do on them after trying very hard on them is NOTHING compared to the DPS i was able to do on last patches Power Mech. 

 

The point i am making that when the gap is so large it is a mountain that most players will not feel necessary to climb. 

As a player that mostly focuses on achievement points i have climbed many mountains in this game.  But i still have a limit. I still have so many hours in the day to play this game. So even if i know people to take on Harvest Temple challenge mode i choose not to because i feel the reward is not worth the effort it takes to get it. and i know most of the players will feel the same with the builds they choose to play at the end of the day. 

[Zepoolpe.9217]

16 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

Stuff

So basically what you are saying is that you are firing the entire balance team and replace it by completly new people because your "Philosophy" is the exact opposite of what you have increasingly done over the past years, with the Crowned Jewels of Balance that are EoD classes.

Either that or that OP was a complete load of tosh.

Hmmm... Given Anet track record with announcements being followed of acts, I really wonder which one it is🤔...

Edited October 29, 2022 by Zepoolpe.9217

[RAZOR.7246]

There was already a similar thread a few weeks back where balance philosophy was discussed extensively. 

From that discussion there were a few key things that 1 could take away. 

 

1. Split PvP/WvW balance from PvE

2. Making low LI builds more viable in current content

3. Complexity of a build or rotation should be rewarded

4. Understanding of why certain builds work so well and why others don't

5. Mobile playstyle vs Static classes

 

 

1. There's no way to balance the PvE and competitive game modes together because the needs are completely different. What you need in a competitive fight is a more rounded build where you can focus on certain elements to assist with survivability while dealing enough damage to win fights. Self-buffing also takes precedence over group. In PvE however, you're looking at specialized builds focused on maximizing their individual usefulness.  My suggestion to make balancing between game modes slightly easier for Devs is to utilize traits that aren't currently useful in the current PvE meta to focus on WvW builds. Each trait line for each class right now definitely has traits that are completely useless. WvW traits should be blocked off in PvE and Vice Versa. 

 

 2. There is a huge demand for low LI builds that are viable so a player of lower skill (99.99% of all players) can go into difficult content and still perform a useful role. I would think the popularity of Scourge, Mechanist and FB builds would be enough of an indication of this. These classes are comfortable to play because of the smooth rotations and playstyle and resultantly, the ability to continue doing damage in high pressure or more mobile situations with an increased survivability due to ranged capabilities or bulkier class designs. If you want the majority of players playing other classes, you need to provide them with a similarly smooth experience. Instead, what you have is a massive drop off if a player can't execute reasonable complex rotations. They are never going to play those classes or play them well because they're uncomfortable, especially in a high-pressure scenario. Even after all the nerfs, you still get the majority of groups with 5 or 6 engineers and 2 firebrands. The average player's damage is garbage of course, but they still play it because they'll do more than they will on a more complex build while enjoying the easier experience.  I've said it before, ALL classes need a LI build that will be viable in endgame content. I will elaborate on what makes a class viable later on.

 

3. Rewarding complexity in a build is all well and good. There are players who want this definitely. However, ONLY rewarding complexity does not cater for the vast majority of players in the game. Complexity should only be considered after establishing baselines using low LI builds and balancing around those with the increased complexity being rewarded accordingly. A complex class that deals extreme damage will not interest the average player because of the extremes in performance levels. A lot of these builds go from 0-100 with no real middle ground. Complexity does not only come in the form of rotations. Some of the drawbacks placed on classes are completely unnecessary and don't make any sense. Modified ammunition is a POWER trait. It is used on POWER engineer builds that do a lot of damage through Bursting. How does it make ANY sense at all to have your team put up conditions for you before you can do damage? Warrior has a similar trait in Empowered. Why are some classes expected to rely heavily on group support while others not? It's an unnecessary complication for balancing. There's complex and there's convoluted and stuff like this is the latter. 

 

4. Look at what makes Mechanist so strong. It's not their benchmark damage. It's the fact that they can continue to deal good damage in situations that other classes can't or rather, that less skilled players can't on those classes. Because of the mobile nature of fights, the mechanist can still do good damage while moving around A LOT because of the ranged and passive capabilities. Not only this, being able to stand at range allows a player to avoid mechanics that they would find more difficult to avoid if they had to stand up close. The difference between standing at 0-150 range vs 200-250 is massive. Scourge is similar with a condition, ranged playstyle which coupled with very high natural bulk, allows a weaker player to perform in a situation he wouldn't be able to otherwise. If you want to balance in this current meta, you need more classes that are able to take the pressure off players in mobile fight or fights with a lot of mechanics and that primarily involves the ability to do quality sustained damage while moving.  

Mechanist aside, look at FB. It's so popular because of the insane amounts of defensive utility (Stab/Aegis) they are able to provide ON DEMAND while being able to upkeep reasonably high levels of healing and damage without having to compromise much on anything.  Which other class can do it as easily without having to compromise anything? Nothing. ALL Healer classes at the very least need to be able to have access to ON DEMAND defensive utility of the same level while ALL Boon Supports should have access to these utilities at the cost of a significant amount of DPS.

Less skilled players don't want to be taught how to play complex rotations. They just want to be able to do stuff with minimum fuss. Maybe they'll be inclined to press 1 or 2 more buttons if they feel they're doing a decent job and can do slightly better without having too much trouble. 

 

5. More recently, we are seeing more and more mobile fights or fights with more mechanics. That's fine, if your classes are not restricted against this playstyle. You want to introduce more mobile fights but at the same time, you don't want the classes to move around accordingly? I don't understand this at all. GW2's combat system has never been like this. Why are they introducing mobility drawbacks when they want the increased mobility and mechanics to be a key facet of GW2's combat system? If anyone wants this sort of unnecessary clunkiness, they can go play FF14.  

 

My solution is very simple. Balance every class around their low LI builds. These builds should provide around 28-32k DPS on the golem while providing the player with an unrestricted experience on the class. This is not even an unreasonable amount. A proper Boon Support is able to provide this kind of damage. For more complex builds, balance the skills and unique class mechanics that are used around these LI rotations to provide the 8-12k DPS increase that would be expected of a more complex build. Mobility restrictions should be kept to a bare minimum while also rewarding enhanced mobility. 100CM is a good example. If you can blink/move quickly across the arena, you do a lot more damage. Perhaps even some sort of SAK similar to the one in Cairn could be given to players or a significant increase in access to high mobility skills as part of a simplified rotation. 

 

There are skills on every class that players will find comfortable to play around. After these basic rotations have been established, they can look at stronger utility/weapon skills that can be used to give a more advanced player their reward for playing a more complex builds. I've listed some examples below:

 

-> Power Ranger 

LB 2,3,5 + Signets -> 28k DPS

-> SB Soulbeast

SB 1,2,4,5 + Autocast Beast Skills + Sharpening Stone, Stances -> 28k DPS (no allies)

 

-> Power Herald

Sword AA + Impossible Odds -> 28k DPS

 

-> Power/Condi Weaver

S/D Fire AA,2,3,4,5 + 2 Elementals + Signet of Fire -> 32k DPS

Edited October 29, 2022 by RAZOR.7246

[Batalix.2873]

30 minutes ago, RAZOR.7246 said:

There was already a similar thread a few weeks back where balance philosophy was discussed extensively. 

From that discussion there were a few key things that 1 could take away. 

 

1. Split PvP/WvW balance from PvE

2. Making low LI builds more viable in current content

3. Complexity of a build or rotation should be rewarded

4. Understanding of why certain builds work so well and why others don't

5. Mobile playstyle vs Static classes

 

 

1. There's no way to balance the PvE and competitive game modes together because the needs are completely different. What you need in a competitive fight is a more rounded build where you can focus on certain elements to assist with survivability while dealing enough damage to win fights. Self-buffing also takes precedence over group. In PvE however, you're looking at specialized builds focused on maximizing their individual usefulness.  My suggestion to make balancing between game modes slightly easier for Devs is to utilize traits that aren't currently useful in the current PvE meta to focus on WvW builds. Each trait line for each class right now definitely has traits that are completely useless.

 

 2. There is a huge demand for low LI builds that are viable so a player of lower skill (99.99% of all players) can go into difficult content and still perform a useful role. I would think the popularity of Scourge, Mechanist and FB builds would be enough of an indication of this. These classes are comfortable to play because of the smooth rotations and playstyle and resultantly, the ability to continue doing damage in high pressure or more mobile situations with an increased survivability due to ranged capabilities or bulkier class designs. If you want the majority of players playing other classes, you need to provide them with a similarly smooth experience. Instead, what you have is a massive drop off if a player can't execute reasonable complex rotations. They are never going to play those classes or play them well because they're uncomfortable, especially in a high-pressure scenario. Even after all the nerfs, you still get the majority of groups with 5 or 6 engineers and 2 firebrands. The average player's damage is garbage of course, but they still play it because they'll do more than they will on a more complex build while enjoying the easier experience.  I've said it before, ALL classes need a LI build that will be viable in endgame content. I will elaborate on what makes a class viable later on.

 

3. Rewarding complexity in a build is all well and good. There are players who want this definitely. However, ONLY rewarding complexity does not cater for the vast majority of players in the game. Complexity should only be considered after establishing baselines using low LI builds and balancing around those with the increased complexity being rewarded accordingly. A complex class that deals extreme damage will not interest the average player because of the extremes in performance levels. A lot of these builds go from 0-100 with no real middle ground. 

 

4. Look at what makes Mechanist so strong. It's not their benchmark damage. It's the fact that they can continue to deal good damage in situations that other classes can't or rather, that less skilled players can't on those classes. Because of the mobile nature of fights, the mechanist can still do good damage while moving around A LOT because of the ranged and passive capabilities. Not only this, being able to stand at range allows a player to avoid mechanics that they would find more difficult to avoid if they had to stand up close. The difference between standing at 0-150 range vs 200-250 is massive. Scourge is similar with a condition, ranged playstyle which coupled with very high natural bulk, allows a weaker player to perform in a situation he wouldn't be able to otherwise. If you want to balance in this current meta, you need more classes that are able to take the pressure off players in mobile fight or fights with a lot of mechanics and that primarily involves the ability to do quality sustained damage while moving.  

Mechanist aside, look at FB. It's so popular because of the insane amounts of defensive utility (Stab/Aegis) they are able to provide ON DEMAND while being able to upkeep reasonably high levels of healing and damage without having to compromise much on anything.  Which other class can do it as easily without having to compromise anything? Nothing. ALL Healer classes at the very least need to be able to have access to ON DEMAND defensive utility of the same level while ALL Boon Supports should have access to these utilities at the cost of a significant amount of DPS.

Less skilled players don't want to be taught how to play complex rotations. They just want to be able to do stuff with minimum fuss. Maybe they'll be inclined to press 1 or 2 more buttons if they feel they're doing a decent job and can do slightly better without having too much trouble. 

 

5. More recently, we are seeing more and more mobile fights or fights with more mechanics. That's fine, if your classes are not restricted against this playstyle. You want to introduce more mobile fights but at the same time, you don't want the classes to move around accordingly? I don't understand this at all. GW2's combat system has never been like this. Why are they introducing mobility drawbacks when they want the increased mobility and mechanics to be a key facet of GW2's combat system? If anyone wants this sort of unnecessary clunkiness, they can go play FF14.  

 

My solution is very simple. Balance every class around their low LI builds. These builds should provide around 28-32k DPS on the golem while providing the player with an unrestricted experience on the class. This is not even an unreasonable amount. A proper Boon Support is able to provide this kind of damage. For more complex builds, balance the skills and unique class mechanics that are used around these LI rotations to provide the 8-12k DPS increase that would be expected of a more complex build. 

 

There are skills on every class that players will find comfortable to play around. After these basic rotations have been established, they can look at stronger utility/weapon skills that can be used to give a more advanced player their reward for playing a more complex builds. I've listed some examples below:

 

-> Power Ranger 

LB 2,3,5 + Signets -> 28k DPS

-> SB Soulbeast

SB 1,2,4,5 + Autocast Beast Skills + Sharpening Stone, Stances -> 28k DPS

 

-> Power Herald

Sword AA + Impossible Odds -> 28k DPS

 

-> Power/Condi Weaver

S/D Fire AA,2,3,4,5 + 2 Elementals + Signet of Fire -> 32k DPS

 

People keep painting specs like Mech and FB as "smooth", as a euphemism for "broken", and I am not here for it. I do not believe the game feel of a lot of other specs is not "smooth" and in fact are quite solid. I do, however, think no job should be able to provide automatic or on-demand multiboons without doing HoT Druid level DPS. The problem isn't "smoothness", planty of other specs have adequately smooth gameplay. Having easy multi-boon application is not "smooth", in that having that design across 27 specs would destroy job identity and diversity. Having easy boon application is "broken", it eliminates depth of combat, reducing it do mashing your DPS buttons so you can not worry about the other subsystems. It is *bad* design in the context of a game with 27 different especs and two jobs that can span nearly all utility of the other 25. It needs to be addressed, not equivocated as "smooth."

 

People keep acting like the only thing that matters in GW2 is DPS, that specs live or die on their ability to meet a benchmark regardless of whether that includes boons or not. The fact is that there are plenty of people who play *healer* builds, many who play because they like the job fantasy and many who play in a way that is *already very LI*.

 

The fact that this game has 27 especs and Druid/Herald are the only two that are pure healers, both of which keep moving further out of that distinct niche because of the big lie that is "big deeps matter" is silly. We have the luxury now of not needing to balance 27 DPS/support especs, but maybe only 18-ish DPS/support especs plus crafting a broad selection of heal-oriented specs. Druid and Herald, add Firebrand, Specter, Scourge, Tempest, maybe Chrono and you have a full suite of heal specs that can be balanced *among each other* to be *good at things other than deeps*.

 

No one cares to see this though, everyone is just myopically fixated on the presumption that every class needs access to all boons while still doing 30, 35k benchmark. Spoilers: you can do 5k DPS and clear most PvE content. When you are in a heal or certain boon roles, you can get away with doing virtually no DPS in raids. Healer specs could do wayyyyyyy less damage and still be totally viable within that role as well. The reasoning behind maintaining "passable" DPS levels on clear healer archetypes is quite dumb... The content would support pure healers and would likely thrive if there were more design and incentive to play healers--which, as I have observed is practically spelled out for us with Druid, Herald, Specter, Firebrand, Scourge, and Chrono.

 

And I'm not an absolutist saying that the solution necessarily lies at this extreme. But it is a clear direction that I think should be strongly considered to maintain build diversity.

Edited October 29, 2022 by CourtJester.5908

[Tseison.4659]

So, should we just start making Quickness and Alacrity just be non shareable because certain professions are being taken mostly over everything else? Have them affect the player only and just balance out what skills/equipment skills provide the player with said boons. 🤷‍♀️

[RAZOR.7246]

Quote

No one cares to see this though, everyone is just myopically fixated on the presumption that every class needs access to all boons while still being self-sufficient. 

 

A statement like this indicates that the reasons for why these presumptions are made are not considered at all. The problem here is that you have classes that can do everything while you have most other classes that can't. We're not even talking about Quickness and Alacrity here. We're talking about boons that have usefulness that significantly improve a group's QoL during a fight. This includes stuff like Capped offensive boons, Fast CC and more importantly, access to Stability and Aegis to protect the group from scenarios that would cause them extra effort. That's the reality. The end goal is for your group to have the access to the necessary boons which in turn, increases your DPS and survivability, which in turn, increases your chances of performing better/clearing content. The reason for the popularity of certain classes over others is because they fulfill needs that other classes cannot. There's nothing myopic about this. Someone who suggests that classes should have more restricted access to certain things game wide, does not understand the overall individual and team goals needed to clear content with efficiency.   

Edited October 29, 2022 by RAZOR.7246

[Ashen.2907]

16 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

We want to design builds

Then you should leave the company and become players. The company should provide tools in the form of skills, weapons, traits, gear, etc with which players may create builds.

We were told that you already had a comprehensive design/balance philosophy document and that you just needed to format it before making it public. This release makes that previous statement seem very unlikely to have been true. This answers almost no questions about practical balance philosophy in GW2 but rather reads like an overview of game design 101 dowloaded after a Google search an hour before release.

[KgsRoCks.5103]

I just want to provide the boon that is expected without having to pay attention to 10482394823 things happening at the same time.

 

As long as there are specs that can do that, they will be choosen above those that have to do ridicolous rotations (ex. untamed alac). And skip those useless comments saying, "urr durr, alac uptime is just 78% my easy and rewarding rotation is ruined because of you, useless alac provider. " - proceeds to leave party or vote-kick. 

 

The vision posted here is not bad, still feels dull as we might have expected a little more of how this apply. 

 

I like the direction, and want more content focused on the mechanics we have to understand and play to clear content. Skip mechanics because we do 5k more dps is what makes the "dps" role so precious, it saves time for the bad loot reward you get. 

 

In the end, make more accesible to play the mid/end game.

Want speed clearing? learn an optimized rotation.

Want to provide defensive buffs? Yeah, specific utils on demand.

Want to provive offensive buffs? Yeah, passive utils or integrated on the LI rotation. 

[Batalix.2873]

27 minutes ago, RAZOR.7246 said:

 

A statement like this indicates that the reasons for why these presumptions are made are not considered at all. The problem here is that you have classes that can do everything while you have most other classes that can't. We're not even talking about Quickness and Alacrity here. We're talking about boons that have usefulness that significantly improve a group's QoL during a fight. This includes stuff like Capped offensive boons and more importantly, access to Stability and Aegis to protect the group from scenarios that would cause them extra effort. That's the reality. The end goal is for your group to have the access to the necessary boons which in turn, increases your DPS and survivability, which in turn, increases your chances of performing better/clearing content. The reason for the popularity of certain classes over others is because they fulfill needs that other classes cannot. There's nothing myopic about this. Someone who suggests that classes should have more restricted access to certain things game wide, does not understand the overall individual and team goals needed to clear content with efficiency.   

 

You have completely glossed over the reality that in most content, a FB or Druid with stability and quickness/alacrity could do virtually no damage and be considered doing their job well to provide those necessary boons. So why, then, do they need the flexibility of doing damage on top of that?

 

It is myopic. It is myopic to create expectations of class performance that, if taken to their logical conclusions, result in 27 especs all playing virtually the same, every role being hybrid DPS+boon. That is not "fulfilling roles", that is homogenizing gameplay that will inevitably result in, at best, FFXIV where there are 20 classes but only narrow variations on five archetypes with near-identical rotations, or worst, a game where there are no distinctions at all and every class is just "faceroll to win" because players kept whinging for *more boons* and simultaneously *benchable deeps*.

 

And with only 4 100 uptime boons in demand (alacrity, quickness, might, and fury), maybe five or six if you count protection and aegis, you will see a lot of duplication and clear inequities with 27 especs all inelegantly tacking on "mandatory" support boons. We are already seeing it with how inconsequential quickness and alacrity have made a good number of unique designs of banners, spirits, wells, and facets, gutting a fair number of especs of a reasonable expectation of enjoying their utility spells and fun, reactive gameplay.

 

It *is* myopic to claim that "usefulness to a group" requires *both* DPS and boon access or healing. An everyman spec is useful to lazy groups who religiously adhere to meta to avoid communicating and collaborating with their team members. To give them easy pug wins. But everyman class design is not healthy for the game if the aim is to maintain job diversity, variety of gameplay, freedom of self expression, and allow the full range of brilliantly designed specs to shine.

 

Your argument is basically tantamount to just wanting to afk on mech because it is the easiest way for you to grind, to which I say go play some shovelware or something, leave good game design alone with your shallow urges for easy victories.

Edited October 29, 2022 by CourtJester.5908

[zeyeti.8347]

12 hours ago, Skyroar.2974 said:

I think the problem is: as long as the attunement system exists in its current state, the ENTIRE class will always be elite-player-gated. Not everyone can or wants to play piano, working twice as hard for the same result as any other class.

But how do you change that? Maybe Anet has had ideas for elite specs where the attunement system is heavily reworked into something simpler, but my guess is that those ideas aren't/haven't been easy to implement, and that's why we keep getting elite specs that only made the complexity problem bigger, instead of smaller.

True , mechanist is an elite's elite spec 😏... ahem. Jokes away , i know you talking about ele only , completely agree .

Edited October 29, 2022 by zeyeti.8347