Guild Wars 2 Balance Philosophy

[RAZOR.7246]

 

Quote

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?

If you're talking about Healer builds here in which case, I have at no point stated that healers need to do damage. I said Boon Supports need to do damage because that's what they're there for. Their primary build is centered around maximizing DPS which is why you don't cap Concentration on these builds, instead focusing on a balance between Concentration and DPS gear. I have not glossed over anything. If a Boon Support is doing similar damage to a healer, they are still not fulfilling their roles despite the boons they might be providing. They are not doing part of the job they're supposed to be doing. There's a reason you don't run 2 healers in the same sub on most things with 1 or 2 exceptions. They're a secondary DPS that is oriented towards complementing both Damage and Support roles. I can't believe I need to explain this. Increased DPS/Better Support = Faster Fights = Less Mechanics = Better QoL. 

 

Quote

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.

This is not my argument. My argument is that if you want to make a class more popular, you have to give it accessibility to certain things that significantly improve a player's QoL. If you actually read my argument, you would see that it's based around balancing complex builds around LI builds so that lower skilled players are able to access content more easily on more classes while more experienced players are rewarded for complex plays. Why don't you go play something else since you can't understand why certain builds are popular in the pug meta instead of crying that the game is broken? If you can't see what needs need to be fulfilled for a better game experience, there's nothing visionary about your comments. Complexity alienates the large majority of players in this game. This is a fact and the sole reason why you're getting groups with majority Engi or FBs in the current meta. Balancing around the top few based the DPS from complex and almost impractical rotations does nothing for the players beneath them. I've played extensively in both types of groups so I don't need you to tell me what I should and should not be playing.  Suggesting that the game should be made even more complex at this point does nothing at all. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by RAZOR.7246

[Labjax.2465]

17 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

In cases where the core mechanic of a skill or trait is problematic in a particular game mode, we'll investigate if there's a way to rework the mechanic that feels good for every mode. In extreme cases, we may decide to significantly adjust how a skill behaves in a single mode, but this would only happen if the skill causes a major balance issue, there isn't a viable rework, and the skill cannot be balanced effectively while respecting the usual considerations of skill splits. Ideally, we want to avoid splits of this nature as they significantly increase the learning curve for players who play multiple game modes, but we will still utilize them when necessary.

I'm glad you're looking at splitting mechanically where you have to for balance reasons. Although I understand the sentiment about the learning curve, I think ensuring the combat experience is enjoyable for every mode and class is far more important than worrying about learning curve. After all, if people can pick it up quickly, but they realize their class, to put it bluntly, stinks in the context they're using it, they learned quickly for no real benefit. I also tend to think that if the learning curve negative can be overcome in some way (ex: through how skill use is communicated to the player), there is actually benefit to be had in skills behaving somewhat differently across modes; it adds variety and opens up opportunities for making the style of a class more snugly fit the game mode.

Edit: Like to put it in some made up specifics to illustrate, if you make an elite spec, we'll call it Bulwark for Guardian and your designer figures, I specifically have WvW in mind as the key area this spec is going to shine, that's great for WvW players, but everybody else is going to be scratching their heads wondering why the spec doesn't quite seem to fit PvE or small scale PvP context. If differences across modes is something you embrace more freely, that designer can now go, ok, I have some ways I want to make this spec shine in WvW, I have some other nuances I can do to make them shine in small scale PvP, and some other nuances I can do to make them shine in raids. Now everybody is happy and it's like 3 specs in one. I don't expect you to do drastic revamps with existing specs, but I think considering this type of thing on a small scale and seeing how players handle it could produce great results going forward, and help inform future design if you do more new elite specs down the road.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Labjax.2465

[Batalix.2873]

11 minutes ago, RAZOR.7246 said:

 

If you're talking about Healer builds here in which case, I have at no point stated that healers need to do damage. I said Boon Supports need to do damage because that's what they're there for. Their primary build is centered around maximizing DPS which is why you don't cap Concentration on these builds, instead focusing on a balance between Concentration and DPS gear. I have not glossed over anything. If a Boon Support is doing similar damage to a healer, they are still not fulfilling their roles despite the boons they might be providing. They are not doing part of the job they're supposed to be doing. There's a reason you don't run 2 healers in the same sub on most things with 1 or 2 exceptions. They're a secondary DPS that is oriented towards complementing both Damage and Support roles. I can't believe I need to explain this. Increased DPS/Better Support = Faster Fights = Less Mechanics = Better QoL. 

 

You wrote a post touting Mechanist, an overpowered "support" as a standard to which other especs should aspire, and then tried advocating or "LI" (try "low effort") as being a desirable baseline.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that you prioritize ease of clearing content over actual game design or job fantasies, because your posts have shown no nuance for enjoying any of the especs, you just want them all to do the same backup roles. That's like...the antithesis of interesting, fun, unique job design, it's just reducing everything to mechanical efficiency so you can get your consistent clears.

Edited October 29, 2022 by CourtJester.5908

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

You want 'fun'? Diversity? Options for 'everybody'? Then why did you nerf ele for years? Why did you ignore all the blatant problems with stealth? Firebrands&scrappers strangle hold in wvw?

And the most egregious fun-killer:

When is mechanist removed from the game? It is really demotivating to have to play piano, while being outdone by a one button class. Besides half of the screen being taken up by jade bots is not fun

Edited October 29, 2022 by VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.

[RAZOR.7246]

Quote

You wrote a post touting Mechanist, an overpowered "support" as a standard to which other especs should aspire, and then tried advocating or "LI" (try "low effort") as being a desirable baseline.

 

It seems pretty clear to me that you prioritize ease of clearing content over actual game design or job fantasies, because your posts have shown no nuance for enjoying any of the especs, you just want them all to do the same backup roles. That's like...the antithesis of interesting, fun, unique job design, it's just reducing everything to mechanical efficiency so you can get your consistent clears.

 

Because the majority of players want lower complexity builds given the amount of Scourges, FBs and Mechanists running around. There's demand for it because it fulfills a need. You can't balance a class based on their individual unique aspects if those aspects are fundamentally unviable to most players as a proper option in most fights in the meta. There's nothing deep about your line of thinking. You're basically saying we should keep the classes the way they are without regard for the way they play in the meta and balance around that. This is the same as balancing around golem DPS and is pretty much what they've been doing. It doesn't work because there are other significant factors in combat that you need to account for.  You can only account for these things and balancing them once your class is playable in the majority of scenarios. The whole point of PvE content is to get clears. Getting consistent clears in harder content especially is a desirable outcome whether you agree with it or not.  

Edited October 29, 2022 by RAZOR.7246

[Zok.4956]

17 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

Today we'll be going over our current balance philosophy for Guild Wars 2. Our goal is to give you all insight into some of the things we consider while working on balance.

(...)

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.

(...)

To put things simply, we want to build a game that is both rewarding and accessible for all types of players.

(...)

As we mentioned back at the start, going forward we'll be working to identify areas where the philosophy can be improved and resolve any outstanding issues where the live game doesn't align with the philosophy.

 

Of course the stream and Anets text lacks a lot of details. But it is only a high-level balance philosophy.

I think this text is a good starting point and this balance philisopy outline will probably serve two purposes. Firstly: To show players that Anet is trying to improve balancing. Second: As a guideline/work instruction to the current and future balancing teams.

Packed in nice language, Anet basically confirmed that the game and previous balancing teams have not adhered to these guidelines so far. Presumably because such a written compilation did not previously exist.

Sure, this text is only the high-level balance philosophy. It is not the end of the balancing problems. It only starts the work/process of cleaning up all the balancing problems when they work on the problems  "top-down" and tell us about it.

But from now on, every balancing decision can be checked whether it violates the official balance philosophy, or not. I think this is a big change compared to the past and this will probably have a big impact on future balancing.

If Anet really will continue going in this way (and if future management will not discard this silently again), we have to see.

[JPUlisses.8756]

Weaver sword needs help in blob fights, other than that ele is quite good in wvw. Not up to firebrand level but nothing is.

[Bakeneko.5826]

26 minutes ago, VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig. said:

When is mechanist removed from the game? It is really demotivating to have to play piano, while being outdone by a one button class. Besides half of the screen being taken up by jade bots is not fun

Play mechanist then

[MuscleBobBuffPants.1406]

7 hours ago, HotDelirium.7984 said:

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

 

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

[HnRkLnXqZ.1870]

There have been a lot of heated discussions about this topic, which often derailed into personal accusations, insults and threats. Now we have it written down, officially and very detailed. There is still room for interpretation, but most of the weird conspiracy theories (from all sections of this community) are now meaningless.

Thank you for making the extra-effort of writing this down in detail. It is not self-evident and compared to our competitors a great step towards the community and a symbol of trust.

Looking forward to the upcoming patches.

[Lucinellia.9247]

18 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.—to have situations that they are viable in. Some skills may be restricted to more niche applications, but we want to avoid cases where a skill simply has no relevant use case. This can sometimes be difficult when considering the needs of multiple game modes, but that leads to our next topic: skill splits.

Does this mean that the balance team and encounter design team will start interfacing with each other more in order to avoid situations like the current Strike CMs, wherein a normally "good" choice can be made into a "bad" choice just by virtue of encounter design that seems to be devoid of awareness with respect to profession design aspects and balance?

Harvest Temple CM is a good example of this where mechanics, enemy toughness, enemy distribution and hit boxes work together to make entire swathes of "good" choices for many other fights into terrible choices.

[Unicorn Luna.5204]

Hey Anet! I didn't watch the stream because I just don't really watch streams when they're on, I occasionally make time to watch uploaded versions when I get to them so I don't know if I'm missing relevant information that's not included in your post here.

 

I'd first like to say thank for doing this and well done. In a way it's quite daring to do this as you're allowing yourselves to be accountable for what you do in the realm of balancing. What this does show is that you really do care about the players and would like us to understand where you're coming from. It's nice to have a few points officially cleared up. I'm deeply grateful for this and I admire what you're attempting.

 

Unfortunately there is a lot of specific info that I was looking forwards to that wasn't included and what was included was quite general. This means that a lot of the balance philosophy is left under assumption and by definition of action. I'm mostly talking instances pve content for context. 

 

I note that a fair few people have talked about homogenisation and that is bad. But I feel that empowering players to play the class they want to is more important. I don't think enabling all classes to have dps/quick or alacdps/quick or alac heal build potential equates to everything being uniform. Class styles remain ever different. I think it's possible to deliver these things on all classes while keeping those classes and especs unique and with differing levels of accessibility.

 

There was once a law that melee dps would be stronger than ranged dps but this no longer appears to be true. I tend to assume this issue was left out of this posting due to the contradictions in current balance. I think it is important to address whether this is still part of balance philosophy and if not, why. This may be difficult as it would also require apologising for not keeping to this in recent years.

 

There are especs that by intention offer next to nothing in terms of healing or boon support, but relatively speaking the damage they do bring to the table is behind even some boon dps builds, let alone other damage builds. What makes sense to me is that classes with boon support and great utility should not have better dps potential than specs that are designed solely for dps. As with melee vs ranged I tend to assume this was left out due to contradictions in current balance.

 

Condi vs power. In most cases that I've found it is simpler to deal damage as a condi spec than it is as a power spec. I've no idea how balancing that could be any less than a nightmare but it feels unusual for me to work really hard to push out power dps and then switch to a condi dps and essentially be letting stats do half the work for me. It's very similar to melee vs range issue for me in that you can place your DoTs and have the luxury to back off for a bit while they do the work. Power dps has no such luck because outside of mechanist and burst damage it's usually only keeping up before condi overtakes on the longhaul. The only way I could foresee balancing that and making it fair at all is if somehow all condi had a slower ramp up time and a larger number in the long fights. But then condi gets made somewhat redundant in short fights over power. Is power supposed to be bursty and condi supposed to be bigger the longer the battle?

 

I like a lot that you want to make effective low intensity classes for those that need low intensity to play and enjoy the game. But I don't feel this should be at the expense of high intensity classes feeling subpar in relation, if anything low intensity should be less effective than high intensity, not ineffective just less. I don't feel effective low intensity specs should have the same high utility of a high intensity spec.

 

I main guardian. I don't like firebrand because it's too much on one spec, but I play it because it's effective for the content I do and because it's one of the two specs expected as a support so if I'm not able to get a dps spot I'm sure to get in as quick heals. And because I love my guardian character.

 

I've never given that much time to engi but I like holosmith and scrapper. I don't like mechanist for the same reasons why I don't like firebrand. It's too much on one spec and way too easily.

 

If there is any one class that should have access too everything and be doing it well it's elementalist but I gave up on that some years ago because the time it requires to get re-familiar with is high and it gets changed so frequently too.

 

Each class deserves to be effective in each area so that we can all play the class and style we want to. But I don't think anything should be so effective at low intensity that no one wants for anything else.

 

I got refused on my heal alac druid recently from a strike group because they wanted heal alac mech. Of course there are issues with spirits being the alac provider but the fact that this can even be a conceivable reaction is due to how the classes were designed and balanced. If people want easy to play specs for a job, that should be fine, but it shouldn't be more reliable or more effective than a class that works harder.

 

I hope the upcoming balance patch reflects your post and answers some of the issues I've mentioned. There is a tremendous amount of work to do in terms of balance in my opinion. Not a small or easy task, it's admirable that you're trying. I'm not sure anyone is really up to it, but I will remain optimistic, because you're anet and you're awesome. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Unicorn Luna.5204

[Arianth Moonlight.6453]

so, no 50% damage boost for Reaper?

also, where is the full balance philosophy document?

[ducksalad.3507]

19 hours ago, Rubi Bayer.8493 said:

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.

 

As Elementalist main, to be honest, I'm very jealous power Mechanist 111111. So, can you make Elementalist staff 1111111 build, which can channel 3 fireballs and self-quickness at the same time?

Edited October 29, 2022 by GiveMeAnOreo.6453

[Silvoshipnos.2089]

Now I can understand why in WvW willbender, harbinger and scrapper are so absolutely busted or why deadeyes have infinite initiative. Roaming doesn't even exist.

I'm guessing that "counterplay" in this document doesn't apply to stealth and how thieves can permanently stay in stealth inside structures to flip them later or how their portal is impossible to see until they activate it.

[Drake Damnation.7914]

Could we see some weapon skill reworks in the future? Like hammers/maces for example, because they are horrible in PVE on warriors and guardians, and they are good on the new elite specs, so it makes viable for the new ones and not the others, like the original hammer user classes.
Personally I'd love to use hammer and mace in PVE with my warrior and guardian, but it's just not worth it, at all.
It's just not viable in PVE because it's mostly a CC weapon, but the dmg and other utilities are inferior to other weapons that also has CC and other utilities.

[Deaeira.2651]

12 hours ago, Coldtart.4785 said:

[...]There was a time when you could call the roles: tanky frontliner, damage frontliner, damage backliner, support backliner and gank squad.[...]

 

And that's only the roles for zerg play - roaming and havoc teams need different compositions as well. I'd really like to stress that WvW is more than large scale fights.

[Hotride.2187]

1 hour ago, Arianth Moonlight.6453 said:

so, no 50% damage boost for Reaper?

also, where is the full balance philosophy document?

 

[Killerblade.5612]

Sometimes i do wonder, If people even realize that this is the philosophy moving forward by a new team lead and not a retrospective view on what happened in the past. 

 

 

so many people comment on how "tgis philosophy wasn't uphold in the past" i mean yeah no kitten its the philosophy of  new balance team they cant affect the past. This post was fairly insightful and while they could have fed us more direct information as to what each point translates to (like Healers only offering "some" offensive boons in PvE?) it was certainly worth the insight and didnt have anything majourly bad in it moving forward

[MikSki.9481]

I love the communication and hope Cal leads the game in good direction. If we get small explanations on each patch as to why the changes are made, it would probably make it easier for people to understand the changes and make them less mad about them. I hope it happens especially on the next big patch for all game modes. And as for myself, I would love to find out what will be the future of power berserker in PvE. Is it going to die for the sake of Bladesworn and now Spellbreaker? Is it going to be meta only on condi setup?

Anyway, keep up the good work Anet! 

[Arianth Moonlight.6453]

kindly reminder that Reaper has one of the lowest DPS in the whole game while also having 0 sustain and absolute no boon sharing.

and no, Shroud provide no sustain at all unless we sacrifice absolute all our DPS leaving us with 0 damage and one of the worst sustains in the whole game anyways.

[Zok.4956]

42 minutes ago, Unicorn Luna.5204 said:

There was once a law that melee dps would be stronger than ranged dps but this no longer appears to be true. I tend to assume this issue was left out of this posting due to the contradictions in current balance. I think it is important to address whether this is still part of balance philosophy and if not, why.

I think this is a good point/example where the stated balance philosophy could already be helpful for the discussion of those questions.

My question would be: Why does/did the rule "melee dps would be stronger than ranged dps" exist?

I think that the rule "mele dps is stronger than ranged dps" came from the fact that players doing melee had to be better (better positioning and position awarenes, better movement, faster reaction and responses to attacks, better avoiding boss cleave damage, etc...) than players doing damage while standing in "safe" ranged positions.

If this is the case, then from "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." the conclusion would be that melee DPS should be stronger/higher than ranged DPS.

Of course, this would influence also the combat/boss design in (PvE-) encounters. Just an example: If you just stand right on top, in the boss of the desert garri in WvW you nearly don't get any damage from the boss, this melee position in the boss is a safe-spot and doing melee damage in this safe-spot should not be better rewared in terms of effectiveness.

So, the written down balance philosophy gives high-levels rules, how it SHOULD BE from now on. It does not say that the game already works how it should work or how fast the game could be changed. 

[Sigmoid.7082]

32 minutes ago, Killerblade.5612 said:

Sometimes i do wonder, If people even realize that this is the philosophy moving forward by a new team lead and not a retrospective view on what happened in the past. 

 

 

so many people comment on how "tgis philosophy wasn't uphold in the past" i mean yeah no kitten its the philosophy of  new balance team they cant affect the past. This post was fairly insightful and while they could have fed us more direct information as to what each point translates to (like Healers only offering "some" offensive boons in PvE?) it was certainly worth the insight and didnt have anything majourly bad in it moving forward

Adding to this a little ,based on some replies on the forum it seems people were expecting a comprehensive blueprint instead of the overarching, high-level philosophical idea of how things should plan out.

 

I also like how they had to specifically call out that this philosophy can evolve and change with the reason  being people still rigidly holding I to the stuff layed out 10 years ago. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Sigmoid.7082

[Svarty.8019]

Is this a BRAND NEW design philosophy? 

 

I ask because I, as someone who played since release, don't recognise it as describing the gameplay thus far.

[Malus.2184]

16 hours ago, Alakazarm.1847 said:

Finally, and this is another point that's been discussed to death on streams and the like, the overwhelming advantage certain builds like firebrand and mechanist have in that they can sacrifice parts of their build for the sake of utility at much less overall cost to their build's output in their designated role.

Every Profession Spec should have this as it means they have to use less Utility skills in a rotational manner.

Every build needs automatic triggers and/or for things to work off their Profession mechanic skills.

All Trait lines should have a trigger built into the first trait that triggers when three consequtive weapon skill 1 have been used. This trigger should give a lessened effect of the <Skill type> trigger and to further balance them out only the top of the threee trait line sone can have active should have this ability activated. A couple of examples would that the Warrior Strength line gave Peak Performance for 3-5 seconds instead of 10. And the Engineer Explosion Trait line made every third consecutive AA do an explosion regardless of what Weapon was used amd then remove the Grenade from the Rifle 1, which is what gives Mechanist the high performance for low APM.

If an Elite Spec gives something then they should be applied to a Profession mechanic of general weapon skill use instead of a specific utility usage.

An example is Specter support. That it gives out Alac via Wells just means that Wells can never be used for utility when a given situation arise. For example. if the Well gives Stability for 8 seconds and Alac for 5 it still has to be used on cooldown in order to give the Alac benefit even though a known situation is coming up where Stab would be useful. Instead of giving Alac on Wells it should be changed so they give Alac when entering Shadowform or when using three consecutive AA. Both options would allow them to work somewhat underwater.

Mechanist should have their Regen and Vigor moved from Mace to a general weapon skill 2 that only gets activated if High-impact Drovers are selected. Likewise, granting Barrier should be a general weapon skill 1 thing if Mech Conduits were selected. This would give them more options for weapons and allow them to function underwater. It would also allow for the Mace to be given an actual identity instead of being an all-purpose weapon that's optimal for neither power nor condi damage.

Some of the Scrapper Gyros are reactive in nature, yet has to be used proactively instead due to the Quickness. Since Toolbelt skills are often proactive in nature the Trait should be changed so that Quickness is applied when Toolbelt skills are used instead of when Gyros are used, again, in order to gove more options and to allow for the Utility skills to be used for actual utility.

The reason Firebrand and Mechanist are prefered Healers/Boon support has nothing to do with them having Utility skills that give something often, it's because their Profession mechanics allows them to give it.

Every other Profession/Elite Spec needs to be able to do the same or their Utility skills need to have a flip-over effect. Example, Warrior Banners, when planted they do their pulse effect immediately. Then the Banner skill flips over to become a Rally effecty that when used does all the other things the Banner gives. For example, banner of Defense, when planted the Pulse effect of Regen is applied, the skill then flips and becomes a Rally that when used applies the Barrier and Aegis allowing them to use the Banner as both a Boon Utility and as a situational utility instead of only as a Boon Utility and hoping that something happens that will make the situational utility apply.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Malus.2184