More Frequent Balance Updates

[Bladestrom.6425]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

Ofc You will see positive improvement. Its why agile has taken over Waterfall and fast deployment is the holy grail of responsive design.

Its a simple analagy. Imagine you could only tweak your build and gear only once every 2 months, how likely are you to get that right? Think about how awful that would be - right? In reality we constantly tweak, because we learn as we go. Same principle

I'm not arguing with you about agile vs. waterfall software development. That's not what the OP is talking about. That's not what anyone but you is talking about.

Even if Anet DID implement agile development (how do you know they don't already?), it's still not going to give people the balance they wish for. It's not going to result in less bugs, etc ... You have to understand that if the targets are different between Anet and certain players, it doesn't matter how fast it's implemented. It's still different.

Again. Imagine you could only tweak your build once every 2 months, compared to the abilty to tweak fast and often. You think any player would ever choose the latter because it will create better balancing results? - ofc not. Its the same principle.

OK .. but the reality of the game is that you can tweak your build whenever you want ... it's got nothing to do with how often we get balance patches. I mean .. the situation you are describing is how meta pushers play ... and since the game has a broader perspective, it seems like a contrived reason to push for more frequent patches.

I mean, really, it just seems like you could care less about balance ... you just want some kind of changes to keep you interested to play around with builds. That's a REALLY poor reason to ask for more patches.

Lol it was an analogy. The principle is fast and often is allways a better balancing mechanic than once every 2 months.its not difficult to understand and well proven in many disciplines, not just games. I cant conprehend why someone would argur that less frequent big bang changes are better, its been proven historically, and is common sense. I suspect some people will argue black is white for the sake of an argument, or maybe just inexperience.

Blindingly obvious side effect. There have been severe Al occasions recently where Net have entirely broken critical skills, and left broken for weeks. This I s one of the many poor side effects of slow releases.

[Obtena.7952]

Well, I don't think the discussion here is if it's better to balance one way or another. It's about if Anet should do more frequent patches and why. Those are very different. What is ideal academically could be far from what Anet is capable of doing realistically.

I think my point is succinctly this: Don't convince yourself that more frequent patches is going to approach a better situation for the game faster, however you might define 'better'.

[Bladestrom.6425]

Convince? It's proven in the industry. I've spent 20 years ad a senior dev, I'm perfectly aware of the impact of slow deliveries, this is not 2000.

[Bladestrom.6425]

If you think slow balances patches are better than n fast that then we'll good luck with that lol

[zealex.9410]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

Ofc You will see positive improvement. Its why agile has taken over Waterfall and fast deployment is the holy grail of responsive design.

Its a simple analagy. Imagine you could only tweak your build and gear only once every 2 months, how likely are you to get that right? Think about how awful that would be - right? In reality we constantly tweak, because we learn as we go. Same principle

I'm not arguing with you about agile vs. waterfall software development. That's not what the OP is talking about. That's not what anyone but you is talking about.

Even if Anet DID implement agile development (how do you know they don't already?), it's still not going to give people the balance they wish for. It's not going to result in less bugs, etc ... You have to understand that if the targets are different between Anet and certain players, it doesn't matter how fast it's implemented. It's still different.

Again. Imagine you could only tweak your build once every 2 months, compared to the abilty to tweak fast and often. You think any player would ever choose the latter because it will create better balancing results? - ofc not. Its the same principle.

OK .. but the reality of the game is that you can tweak your build whenever you want ... it's got nothing to do with how often we get balance patches. I mean .. the situation you are describing is how meta pushers play ... and since the game has a broader perspective, it seems like a contrived reason to push for more frequent patches.

I mean, really, it just seems like you could care less about balance ... you just want some kind of changes to keep you interested to play around with builds. That's a REALLY poor reason to ask for more patches.

An mmo balance isnt only about things being as close as possible and fair, its also about the tables turning at a good pace to where it doesnt get boring. Pvp and wvw dont get dungeons and raids to remain engaged and giving them a map in pvp isnt the same with giving pve a map.

Changing things up to keep it fresh is vital for a game to be engaging to the players.

[zealex.9410]

@Obtena.7952 said:Well, I don't think the discussion here is if it's better to balance one way or another. It's about if Anet should do more frequent patches and why. Those are very different. What is ideal academically could be far from what Anet is capable of doing realistically.

I think my point is succinctly this: Don't convince yourself that more frequent patches is going to approach a better situation for the game faster, however you might define 'better'.

Hotfixes in games are a way for devs to issue fixes in an immidiate manner for severe issues, whether its balance or anything in a game. Hotfixes by many are considered some of the best aproaches to problem solving and at its core is acting fast.

If say the skyscale was released and there was a huge bug that caused it after some point to not register the eggs you find or the feeding u do, would u rather w8 2 or 3 months to see it fixed or as soon as possible?

[Obtena.7952]

I can see that's a desirable feature ... having lots of fresh options. I think that's exactly why we have lots of choice in traits, skills, weapons, etc ... It doesn't make much sense to me at least to go through the pains of changing something not intended to change often just for the sake of giving players choice when there are other elements where it's already offered intentionally. I mean, let's be honest ... if Anet NAILED the traits, they would never change. We would simply get a new espec every expansion and the pool of choices is sufficient.

Basically, if the goal is more options to keep things fresh, I don't think changing traits and skills is the best way to do it. If we just want more options, we should be asking for new skills, weapons, etc ...

Also, think of it this way. It's REALLY unlikely that Anet is going to be able to give more frequent patches to continually offer players fresh play when they already show a certain period of patch cycles for balancing. IN otherwords, I don't think you will get change for the sake of balancing AND fresh play options considering what we get now.

Bottomline: you don't get something for nothing ... if you want higher frequency balance patches, something is going to give, and I think it will be the quality. If you want to push for more frequent patches for fresh play options, your going to lose whatever sense of balance exists to get those.

[zealex.9410]

@Obtena.7952 said:I can see that's a desirable feature ... having lots of fresh options. I think that's exactly why we have lots of choice in traits, skills, weapons, etc ... It doesn't make much sense to me at least to go through the pains of changing something not intended to change often just for the sake of giving players choice when there are other elements where it's already offered intentionally. I mean, let's be honest ... if Anet NAILED the traits, they would never change. We would simply get a new espec every expansion and the pool of choices is sufficient.

Its not jecessarily about quantity altho the more the better, its about not having the existing choice/s be the goto for too long as to where ppl simoly get bored.

Basically, if the goal is more options to keep things fresh, I don't think changing traits and skills is the best way to do it. If we just want more options, we should be asking for new skills, weapons, etc ...

One would assume buffing or nerfing a weapon, skill, trait would be easier and cheaper than creating new skills all the time. Goes to show that expacs are paid and balance patches arent.

Also, think of it this way. It's REALLY unlikely that Anet is going to be able to give more frequent patches to continually offer players fresh play when they already show a certain period of patch cycles for balancing. IN otherwords, I don't think you will get change for the sake of balancing AND fresh play options considering what we get now.

The point of the discussion is that anet should focus on number of patches more so than size. I dont care about a mesmerfocus buffs comming in 3 months if i find the weapon trash right now. Regardless how u see it anet will see bigger and or better results from the game the more effort they put into it. Thats in the long term tho rn i think the most important thing is to get down the pace even if it means smaller patches (which it will almost certainly mean that).

Bottomline: you don't get something for nothing ... if you want higher frequency balance patches, something is going to give, and I think it will be the quality. If you want to push for more frequent patches for fresh play options, your going to lose whatever sense of balance exists to get those.

I douht it will be the quality because thats not certain regardless the frequency. If something will suffer at first it will be quantity of said patches (at least at the start, the more used to they get to the pace the more they will optimise their productivity)

How often the meta will change is up to the playerbase as a whole to deem imo, i think rn the meta remains stale for too long but if they go about it changing the meta every week then that wont be good either.

[Blude.6812]

@zealex.9410 said:

@Blude.6812 said:

@Mil.3562 said:But 90% of all Balance Updates are nerfs, so more frequent nerf updates? Nope.

THIS^ . I wish they would work on fixing things that are really annoying like the vet kraits spawning in the ground (or sea bottom in these cases) and the targeting system. like at the flax farm in tangled depths, and wyverns are directly in front of the player and the game targets frogs in the next level down- (they are many more btw like scaling down)--- that is just basic stuff that should have fixed long ago, that they seem to be completely ignoring or are unable to.

If the changes are nerfs then theres a point behind it, wvw, pvp and even pve to an extend have all complained multiple times over the years that the powercreep has damaged the game.

My experience is more of power being reduced and targeting some professions more than others, but as I said there are much more things that Anet should be doing.

[Bladestrom.6425]

The industry got this a decade ago. It really is old hat by now. https://blog.codinghorror.com/version-1-sucks-but-ship-it-anyway/

'There's no question that, for whatever time budget you have, you will end up with better software by releasing as early as practically possible, and then spending the rest of your time iterating rapidly based on real world feedback.'

recognise this characteristic?

'the velocity and responsiveness of your team to user feedback will set the tone for your software, far more than any single release ever could.'

option 1 slow-large-guaranteed-to-be-stale patches with a 2 month window before the next chance to correct wrongs.

Or

Deploy your changes fast and often and react in real time to customer demand.

I know what one i want as a game player.

[Obtena.7952]

What is fast isn't defined by what players think though. that's just unrealistic.

[LadyKitty.6120]

More frequent balance patches would fix potential balance issues faster and eventually lead to wider gaps to get narrower (unless they mess up badly like sometimes happens). But on the other hand, since PVE community relies a lot on buildcrafters for their builds and seem to be quite lost if they can't copy-pasta a build from some site, less frequent balance patches are somewhat better as it gives benchmarkers and buildcrafters more time to do the testing and write the guides and also allows more thorough work at it.One big reason why Kitty initially had to stop doing Kittymarks was the increased balance patch frequency as monthly balance patches left too little time to do all the testing (since Kitty tests hundreds of build variations) and she can't even imagine what's it like for the few guys at Snowcrows who do way longer testing per build and keep all those guides updated. Quarterly balance patches is a good frequency in that regard.

[Obtena.7952]

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Convince? It's proven in the industry. I've spent 20 years ad a senior dev, I'm perfectly aware of the impact of slow deliveries, this is not 2000.

Um, no, you don't work at Anet ... I don't care what your experience is in the industry because again ... this isn't about a debate about academics. What is relevant is how Anet does it. I've worked in the same industry in a handful of companies for 20 years too ... but I can tell you that it's not about what some textbook tells you the best way to do things; it's about how a specific company does it.

[Bladestrom.6425]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"vesica tempestas.1563" said:Convince? It's proven in the industry. I've spent 20 years ad a senior dev, I'm perfectly aware of the impact of slow deliveries, this is not 2000.

Um, no, you don't work at Anet ... I don't care what your experience is in the industry because again ... this isn't about a debate about academics. What is relevant is how Anet does it. I've worked in the same industry in a handful of companies for 20 years too ... but I can tell you that it's not about what some textbook tells you the best way to do things; it's about how a specific company does it.

If you have worked in the industry for 20 years you should know EXACTLY what i'm talking about, its been the fundamental driving force for the last 15 years in progressive houses. I'm assuming you disagree and think slow balance cycles is good then, is that what your saying, really? Go ask google, they know a thing or 2.

https://blog.codinghorror.com/version-1-sucks-but-ship-it-anyway/

'There's no question that, for whatever time budget you have, you will end up with better software by releasing as early as practically possible, and then spending the rest of your time iterating rapidly based on real world feedback' But you know this ofc, you have worked on and off for 20 years right.

[Iozeph.5617]

All I know is that balance, particularly in competitive modes, is a hot mess. So if there are more frequent balance passes it isn't as if it's going to get any worse. It could only improve, especially if they finally devote an open test server for players to try and break or prove that future changes are broken before they're dropped on the larger community.

[Ashen.2907]

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

No, but you keep ignoring it and its obvious value.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

The problem, isnt what kind of balance they are delivering, the problem, is that its been delivered rather slowly and that hurts the game. I dont expect them balancing faster to mean that they will suddenly balance smarter but they will be able to at least act upon feedback much faster.

If say your car broke down and you couldnt use or it performed way bellow what it did would u rather have mechanics have their car repair open once a week? twice a week? every day of the week minus sunday or once a month?

I would rather take my car to the mechanic to work on until its fixed, even if that took a month, than go back and forth every day hoping that perhaps this time they got it right.

[Khisanth.2948]

I don't think we need more frequent update as much as more responsive updates. Outliers should be dealt with promptly while others can be taken care of more slowly.

[Bladestrom.6425]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

No, but you keep ignoring it and its obvious value.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

The problem, isnt what kind of balance they are delivering, the problem, is that its been delivered rather slowly and that hurts the game. I dont expect them balancing faster to mean that they will suddenly balance smarter but they will be able to at least act upon feedback much faster.

If say your car broke down and you couldnt use or it performed way bellow what it did would u rather have mechanics have their car repair open once a week? twice a week? every day of the week minus sunday or once a month?

I would rather take my car to the mechanic to work on until its fixed, even if that took a month, than go back and forth every day hoping that perhaps this time they got it right.

A better analogy would be your firewall security, would you want that to be updated ASAP or every 2 months?

Back to your car analogy, guess what, after those 2 months you got your car back the next day and the car still still had a couple of the old problems, and now there is a new problem - but the garage told you they would not do another set of fixes for 2 months. Crazy huh

[zealex.9410]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Convince? It's proven in the industry. I've spent 20 years ad a senior dev, I'm perfectly aware of the impact of slow deliveries, this is not 2000.

Um, no, you don't work at Anet ... I don't care what your experience is in the industry because again ... this isn't about a debate about academics. What is relevant is how Anet does it. I've worked in the same industry in a handful of companies for 20 years too ... but I can tell you that it's not about what some textbook tells you the best way to do things; it's about how a specific company does it.

Some times that can work others it doesnt, in case of bioware, bioware magic didnt work.

I think in case of anet the slow balance doesnt work and its actively killing the pvp and wvw game modes as well as pve so long as thats not getting any new elite specs.

[zealex.9410]

@Ashen.2907 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

No, but you keep ignoring it and its obvious value.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

The problem, isnt what kind of balance they are delivering, the problem, is that its been delivered rather slowly and that hurts the game. I dont expect them balancing faster to mean that they will suddenly balance smarter but they will be able to at least act upon feedback much faster.

If say your car broke down and you couldnt use or it performed way bellow what it did would u rather have mechanics have their car repair open once a week? twice a week? every day of the week minus sunday or once a month?

I would rather take my car to the mechanic to work on until its fixed, even if that took a month, than go back and forth every day hoping that perhaps this time they got it right.

But, them taking a month doesnt meant that the car will necessarily be fixed like it doesnt mean for anet that some out of line build will be touched from one patch to another.

[Ashen.2907]

@zealex.9410 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

If you were a software developer you would understand how critical it is that you deliver fast and often, evolve fast or procrastinate and stagnate.

OK .. but that doesn't change what I said ...

No, but you keep ignoring it and its obvious value.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Jski.6180 said:The faster you can brake up the meta the better. At best ppl are just asking for one way to play the game for months on end with longer time in-between updates.

This shows a big misunderstanding of the goals of balancing. It's not there to break up meta and meta never goes away either. Also, it is important to maintain so sense of continuity in a class. For the meta to 'break up', you need to smash something pretty hard.

Braking up meta is part of that goal of balancing.

You don't know if that is a goal of Anet's balancing. I can't actually think of a reason Anet would make that a goal of their balancing; just changing meta from one thing to another has really low value. Again, that sounds more like wishful thinking than an actual useful think to do. If you need a reminder of the 'goals' Anet sets for balance, you can check my sig.

@zealex.9410 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:I am 99% sure that ANet would like to offer more balance updates, too. The question is: how do they pay for it, given the resource limitations and plans that they already have?

Like with most of the stuff they do for the game its an investent. They invest in faster balance with the hope it will lead to overall better balance and that will bring/retain more players.

This is more of that wishful thinking going on.... why would ANYONE at this point in the game think faster balancing efforts would lead to a result different than what we seen for the last 7 years? That doesn't make sense. If anything, if Anet is rushed to more frequent balancing patches ... I would expect WORSE results, not better.

The fact is this: balancing is a low value proposition because balance efforts isn't something players in this game value highly enough to invest in.

More often balancing counters one of the major issues gw2 has had in a long time which is classes becoming overpowered or trash by a patch and then staying lile that for 2+ months, also the meta never changes which also bores ppl away from the game.

No it doesn't. You can't assume that more frequent balance patches are going to address that. You can wish that, but more frequent balance patches aren't a guarantee that changes.

I mean i guess but that goes both ways, u cant guarantee less balance patches are gonna be better and hit the nail in the head either.

Except I'm not claiming that either. The bottomline here is that no reasonable person at this point should be thinking that Anet changing their balancing schedule is going to result in game changes they want to see. That's just bad assumptions. Anet could put out a balance patch every day and you still likely won't see the balance you are after ... we already KNOW what kind of balance they are delivering; faster patches isn't going to change that direction. It's just going to add more technical problems like bugs, etc...

The problem, isnt what kind of balance they are delivering, the problem, is that its been delivered rather slowly and that hurts the game. I dont expect them balancing faster to mean that they will suddenly balance smarter but they will be able to at least act upon feedback much faster.

If say your car broke down and you couldnt use or it performed way bellow what it did would u rather have mechanics have their car repair open once a week? twice a week? every day of the week minus sunday or once a month?

I would rather take my car to the mechanic to work on until its fixed, even if that took a month, than go back and forth every day hoping that perhaps this time they got it right.

But, them taking a month doesnt meant that the car will necessarily be fixed like it doesnt mean for anet that some out of line build will be touched from one patch to another.

Yeah, but as soon as the mechanic says my vehicle is fixed my insurance stops paying for my rental. Having to re-request a rental every other day...not good.

Look, I get that shorter iteration has the potential to be a good thing. But its just that, merely a possibility. Do you want the guy working on your brakes to rush the job?

[Za Shaloc.3908]

Of course I would like more frequent balance changes, but what I would like even more than that is more frequent and thoughtful communication from the balance team. I see ANet at times making effort to communicate, but it is like these little glimpses of initial effort that quickly fade out. Perhaps they get annoyed by how vocal, aggressive, and dramatic our community can be, but to be honest if that is the case, growing a thick enough skin is an important aspect of such a job if you are striving for good consumer relations and a quality product. At the end of the day we are all passionate nerds here wanting the best (subjective) vision we have for the game. I know I myself am very critical of this game, but it is because I love it and want to see it thrive more. It would be nice to be able to have more conversations with them, to be able to ask them more questions, to hear deeper explanations from them, etc. Things like what they see as problematic and what they are happy with. For me, balance patch frequency makes me happy because it makes me feel like the devs are paying attention to us, and in my eyes that is a big deal for the sPvP/WvW communities, which I would argue largely feel rather neglected. If more frequent patches is not a realistic possibility, I would like to hear from them more. We still do hear from Ben P, but I don't think he is even part of the balance team.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Ashen.2907" said:Look, I get that shorter iteration has the potential to be a good thing. But its just that, merely a possibility. Do you want the guy working on your brakes to rush the job?If i wanted my brakes fixed, i wouldn't give my car to the game balance devs. Because if i did, i'd never get it back into a perfect condition.

Hint: there's exactly zero chance of the devs getting it "right". Balance fixes are never a one-time thing, they are always a constant process. They require a large number of iterations, each one trying to get closer and closer to the ideal state (that in itself is never really achievable). And, since players keep thinking of new things, those iterations need to be based on ingame results (as inhouse testings are certain to not be thorough enough). This is especially true for a game like GW2, with high level of build complexity (somparable to many other games, even if still lacking compared to GW1) and high difference between effectiveness at different skill levels.

Basically, longer balance intervals do not mean the balance fixes will be any better. It will only mean that in a given timeframe there will be less chances to adjust them in the right direction.

[b k.1648]

@"Pterikdactyl.7630" said:Of course I would like more frequent balance changes, but what I would like even more than that is more frequent and thoughtful communication from the balance team. I see ANet at times making effort to communicate, but it is like these little glimpses of initial effort that quickly fade out. Perhaps they get annoyed by how vocal, aggressive, and dramatic our community can be, but to be honest if that is the case, growing a thick enough skin is an important aspect of such a job if you are striving for good consumer relations and a quality product. At the end of the day we are all passionate nerds here wanting the best (subjective) vision we have for the game. I know I myself am very critical of this game, but it is because I love it and want to see it thrive more. It would be nice to be able to have more conversations with them, to be able to ask them more questions, to hear deeper explanations from them, etc. Things like what they see as problematic and what they are happy with. For me, balance patch frequency makes me happy because it makes me feel like the devs are paying attention to us, and in my eyes that is a big deal for the sPvP/WvW communities, which I would argue largely feel rather neglected. If more frequent patches is not a realistic possibility, I would like to hear from them more. We still do hear from Ben P, but I don't think he is even part of the balance team.

That's always a balancing act, and it's hard to get right. The problem is, the job of most developers is to develop software, not communicate with customers - or convince players they know how to do their jobs. It's really easy to say something you shouldn't when players keep parroting the same stupid comments - my favourite is "they don't even have a QA team, we find all the bugs for them" as though every problem the QA team might report gets magically solved straight away.

Aside from that, there are two situations in which balance changes are made:

• Urgent problems - bugs, exploits etc. that have a major negative effect on gameplay. These patches are done as soon as they're ready, regardless of the patch 'cycle'.
• Non-urgent problems - such as making adjustments to balance where the devs responsible would like to change the status quo. They're done on a regular cycle as their effects should be relatively minor, and give players who enjoy theory-crafting the opportunity to try new builds.

If it doesn't get patched straight away, the simple truth is that ANet doesn't think the problem is that bad. That's also why we see balance changes come by and things that the playerbase largely agrees are problematic don't get addressed. If they aren't getting changed on a two-month cycle, they won't get changed on a one-week cycle either.

So the frequency of updates is, to me, irrelevant. It seems the real question is why ANet's balance team has a different view from the (more vocal) players over what's a problem and what's not.

[Obtena.7952]

@zealex.9410 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@vesica tempestas.1563 said:Convince? It's proven in the industry. I've spent 20 years ad a senior dev, I'm perfectly aware of the impact of slow deliveries, this is not 2000.

Um, no, you don't work at Anet ... I don't care what your experience is in the industry because again ... this isn't about a debate about academics. What is relevant is how Anet does it. I've worked in the same industry in a handful of companies for 20 years too ... but I can tell you that it's not about what some textbook tells you the best way to do things; it's about how a specific company does it.

Some times that can work others it doesnt, in case of bioware, bioware magic didnt work.

I think in case of anet the slow balance doesnt work and its actively killing the pvp and wvw game modes as well as pve so long as thats not getting any new elite specs.

The fact is that no one claim fast or slow is a problem because no one knows the process Anet has. Dude is claiming they should implement agile ... he has no clue if they don't do it already. I mean, why does everyone think Anet could do more balance patches in the first place? Like they balance team goes on vacation every month for 2 weeks or something?

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Ashen.2907 said:Look, I get that shorter iteration has the potential to be a good thing. But its just that, merely a possibility. Do you want the guy working on your brakes to rush the job?If i wanted my brakes fixed, i wouldn't give my car to the game balance devs. Because if i did, i'd never get it back into a perfect condition.

Basically, longer balance intervals do not mean the balance fixes will be any better. It will only mean that in a given timeframe there will be less chances to adjust them in the right direction.

OK ... and shorter ones could mean they do it worse. The time they currently take is the time they need to do it. More frequent patches just mean it's rushed.