The importance of Build Diversity and why it's more important than balance.

[Sovereign.1093]

to be fair, there can only be a few good builds.

[Nerah.8235]

Depends on the context and scale.

Power balance between classes seems to mostly be a problem at small scale: a relatively few builds on a handful of classes are so completely overwhelming that they will absolutely destroy any opponent (assuming equal skill) and can comfortably 1vX with a good-to-great chance of winning. This could be due to monstrous sustain, high stealth uptime, extreme movement abilities, constant detargetting, or a combination of these "gimmicks". Not all classes have tools that allow them to do this, which leads to frustration, given that the game is marketed as a fantasy RPG where the player is a "hero". Clearly, having a subpar class that can't really beat opponents reliably isn't "heroic". Professions such as Mirage, Soulbeast, and Holo are very strong in this small scale sense.

Build diversity seems to be a more large scale (or macro) problem. There are certain types of abilities that are simply more efficient in a specific content (although possibly less powerful in a general or small-scale sense). Area affecting skills such as Cleave, Heal (area), and Cleanse (area) fall into this category, as does Boon Share. Since classes have very uneven distribution of skill types, some will be overloaded with area-affecting skills, which become massively more efficient with stacking (provided the mechanic is allowed to stack by the system). Professions such as Scourge and Firebrand fall into this category (at least in WvW). Note that the build diversity problem changes based on the specific scenario due to differing efficiency needs in each scenario [i.e. META], while the power issue in small scale is constant (until nerfs).

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Nerah.8235" said:Depends on the context and scale.

Power balance between classes seems to mostly be a problem at small scale: a relatively few builds on a handful of classes are so completely overwhelming that they will absolutely destroy any opponent (assuming equal skill) and can comfortably 1vX with a good-to-great chance of winning. This could be due to monstrous sustain, high stealth uptime, extreme movement abilities, constant detargetting, or a combination of these "gimmicks". Not all classes have tools that allow them to do this, which leads to frustration, given that the game is marketed as a fantasy RPG where the player is a "hero". Clearly, having a subpar class that can't really beat opponents reliably isn't "heroic". Professions such as Mirage, Soulbeast, and Holo are very strong in this small scale sense.

Build diversity seems to be a more large scale (or macro) problem. There are certain types of abilities that are simply more efficient in a specific content (although possibly less powerful in a general or small-scale sense). Area affecting skills such as Cleave, Heal (area), and Cleanse (area) fall into this category, as does Boon Share. Since classes have very uneven distribution of skill types, some will be overloaded with area-affecting skills, which become massively more efficient with stacking (provided the mechanic is allowed to stack by the system). Professions such as Scourge and Firebrand fall into this category (at least in WvW). Note that the build diversity problem changes based on the specific scenario due to differing efficiency needs in each scenario [i.e. META], while the power issue in small scale is constant (until nerfs).

You are correct in that scale is indeed a huge factor here.

Almost all complex systems start from very basic constituents. A good example of a complex system would be how air molecules moving around in the atmosphere can go on to create supercell storms and tornadoes. So at an elementary scale, things can be quite simple and as we go into larger scales they gain complexity.

This is the reason why it’s critical to address issues on the small scale to tackle large scale problems, and it’s why I proposed diversity being addressed in the context of the individual.

When it comes down to diversity, the key component is that diverse autonomous agents are more able to adapt. In the context of builds this adaptation is when a particular build shows up, there is another build that can compete with it, and this is invariant with scale. The larger the system becomes, the more opportunities for autonomous agents to adapt appear, so long as they are actually able to adapt in the first place (build diversity).If builds are limited in that they can not adapt, either to other builds in small or large scales, then you can see how this issue is pervasive on all scales.

Just another example just to be more clear. If s/d condi thief is the only viable build available to a thief, and this build is good only in 1v1. Then as the system becomes more complex (more players become involved) then the condi thief will try to adapt to the larger scale with a different type of condi build that may be better in 5v5. If such an option doesn’t exist, then the thief can not adapt to the 5v5 situation with a condi build.

This is essentially what happens to classes like thieves, mesmers and rangers. They have builds that work only at a particular small scale and have no build options that work in larger and larger scales so they don’t see play in Zerg content, because the diversity doesn’t exist for them. This leaves player classes that are able to adapt (ie; scourges) have less competition, and it becomes no surprise that scourges take up the majority of player real estate in a squad.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

to have more diversity all the underpowered and straight up useless skills and traits need to be buffed. this is happening slowly it seems. even then this game has very limited choices, if comparing it to its predecessor. that being said, there is a bit more diversity then ppl give credit to.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:to have more diversity all the underpowered and straight up useless skills and traits need to be buffed. this is happening slowly it seems. even then this game has very limited choices, if comparing it to its predecessor. that being said, there is a bit more diversity then ppl give credit to.

Simply buffing useless skills can increase diversity..,yes...but not as much as you might believe.

If we really want build diversity, you have to completely change your perspective on the idea of how to make something more diverse

Consider this. Imagine a single trait, that could belong to any class that did the following:

“Your heal utilities can now effect up to 5 allies.”

Without even touching any heal utilities in their current useless state, you’ve gained for ANY Class this trait could belong to, immense value in build diversity. Go over to the healing utility wiki and just imagine what a simple trait choice could do for single target healing utilities if they could now effect up to 5 allies via a trait choice. Useless traits you would have never though to use now become very interesting in a group setting.

This sort of approach vs just buffing each one individually lends itself to more diversity in a more simplistic way, but yielding a greater pallet of results, and is easier to identify problem skills.

[Nerah.8235]

Diversity (i.e. large scale build variety) as described by the OP could--in theory--be greatly increased by decreasing the efficiency of a relatively few types of effects, specifically boon sharing and area denial (cleave) attacks. ANET has started doing this with the Scourge nerfs (i.e. cleave and area denial is now being mitigated). The large scale problem there is that even then, 1) the distribution of these mostly AoE effects among classes is very uneven, so the desirable effect is still only obtainable by taking the (nerfed) classes, 2) and you can just increase your efficiency by stacking up even more.

So, a paradox: lessening the effect causes further stacking [in modes that allow it] to get the efficiency back.

An even greater problem is that when you nerf large-scale efficiency, you also decimate small scale power: Scourge (for example) is now a sitting duck in small scale, since it was never designed to deal with small scale efficiently, and is now even worse at it.

I agree that more attention should be paid to small scale, and much more aggressively (schedule wise). Once there is a bit of parity in small scale, large scale can be tuned a bit more easily, with fewer unintended consequences.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Nerah.8235 said:Diversity (i.e. large scale build variety) as described by the OP could--in theory--be greatly increased by decreasing the efficiency of a relatively few types of effects, specifically boon sharing and area denial (cleave) attacks. ANET has started doing this with the Scourge nerfs (i.e. cleave and area denial is now being mitigated). The large scale problem there is that even then, 1) the distribution of these mostly AoE effects among classes is very uneven, so the desirable effect is still only obtainable by taking the (nerfed) classes, 2) and you can just increase your efficiency by stacking up even more.

So, a paradox: lessening the effect causes further stacking [in modes that allow it] to get the efficiency back.

In theory yes. But because of the exact paradox you explained here, is the reason why tackling the issue through the lense of larger scales is not the right approach. That's why the key concept here is build adaptability, and how well each class is able to adapt. This would make the nerfing of those things mechanics you listed unnecessary because through there being more builds that can adapt to compete with the meta, so would the meta change, without ever coming into conflict with this paradox.

@Nerah.8235 said:ANET has started doing this with the Scourge nerfs (i.e. cleave and area denial is now being mitigated).

That's why this half of your comment actually makes historical sense. Anet has been doing the total opposite of trying to achieve build diversity, but instead has been going for what is called "purity of purpose" or more commonly known as assigning classes "roles".

If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...i'm sure you've heard people say the following.

"Thief is a +1 and decapper class""Mesmer is a good duelist 1v1er""Holosmith's and necromancers are teamfighters"

As you can see these all deal with the scale of the fight, from 1v1's up to teamfighters (which scale to 5+ people). Because anet has pigeon-holed builds into specific roles by scale, they now have less build options that allow them to adapt to perform in other scales because in anets eyes it was "silly" to have a +1 thief class to be a good teamfighter for example. This line of thinking was absolutely detrimental to balance of the game and it's one of the reasons we are in the balance/diversity mess we have right now. It's also the reason why even the most recent nerfs and buffs to skills are not going to solve anything. Like the scourge nerf you mentioned above, it may increase diversity, but it is doing so in the completely wrong way (it actually ends up DECREASING diversity, specifically for necromancer in order to try and decrease competition, which only by proxy, will increase diversity elsewhere to other classes.) But we still have the fact that none of the classes can adapt to zerg fighting...so what's gonna happen is we are going to bump into the paradox...we will just continue to see scourges, and the meta game will continue to be the same.

[LadyKitty.6120]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Nerah.8235" said:Depends on the context and scale.

Power balance between classes seems to mostly be a problem at small scale: a relatively few builds on a handful of classes are so completely overwhelming that they will absolutely destroy any opponent (assuming equal skill) and can comfortably 1vX with a good-to-great chance of winning. This could be due to monstrous sustain, high stealth uptime, extreme movement abilities, constant detargetting, or a combination of these "gimmicks". Not all classes have tools that allow them to do this, which leads to frustration, given that the game is marketed as a fantasy RPG where the player is a "hero". Clearly, having a subpar class that can't really beat opponents reliably isn't "heroic". Professions such as Mirage, Soulbeast, and Holo are very strong in this small scale sense.

Build diversity seems to be a more large scale (or macro) problem. There are certain types of abilities that are simply more efficient in a specific content (although possibly less powerful in a general or small-scale sense). Area affecting skills such as Cleave, Heal (area), and Cleanse (area) fall into this category, as does Boon Share. Since classes have very uneven distribution of skill types, some will be overloaded with area-affecting skills, which become massively more efficient with stacking (provided the mechanic is allowed to stack by the system). Professions such as Scourge and Firebrand fall into this category (at least in WvW). Note that the build diversity problem changes based on the specific scenario due to differing efficiency needs in each scenario [i.e. META], while the power issue in small scale is constant (until nerfs).

You are correct in that scale is indeed a huge factor here.

Almost all complex systems start from very basic constituents. A good example of a complex system would be how air molecules moving around in the atmosphere can go on to create supercell storms and tornadoes. So at an elementary scale, things can be quite simple and as we go into larger scales they gain complexity.

This is the reason why it’s critical to address issues on the small scale to tackle large scale problems, and it’s why I proposed diversity being addressed in the context of the individual.

When it comes down to diversity, the key component is that diverse autonomous agents are more able to adapt. In the context of builds this adaptation is when a particular build shows up, there is another build that can compete with it, and this is invariant with scale. The larger the system becomes, the more opportunities for autonomous agents to adapt appear, so long as they are actually able to adapt in the first place (build diversity).If builds are limited in that they can not adapt, either to other builds in small or large scales, then you can see how this issue is pervasive on all scales.

Just another example just to be more clear. If s/d condi thief is the only viable build available to a thief, and this build is good only in 1v1. Then as the system becomes more complex (more players become involved) then the condi thief will try to adapt to the larger scale with a different type of condi build that may be better in 5v5. If such an option doesn’t exist, then the thief can not adapt to the 5v5 situation with a condi build.

This is essentially what happens to classes like thieves, mesmers and rangers. They have builds that work only at a particular small scale and have no build options that work in larger and larger scales so they don’t see play in Zerg content, because the diversity doesn’t exist for them. This leaves player classes that are able to adapt (ie; scourges) have less competition, and it becomes no surprise that scourges take up the majority of player real estate in a squad.

The problem here is that it's not just one system being balanced but essentially 3-5 different systems (small-scale WvW, large-scale WVW, PVP, fractals and raids) with each change affecting all those systems unless doing splits. Getting one system balanced can cause other systems to go into massive imbalance (and currently PVE balance is relatively good, though there's still lots of room to improve, while balance in competitive gamemodes is quite haywire). There's also big problems of some things causing a build to become OP in one mode while the very same change makes it totally inferior in another mode. For ex. the shade revamp on scourge led heal-scourge to become an insanely strong support in end-game PVE (though apparently most of peoples are yet to discover its new abilities) while it was considered a huge nerf especially in small-scale WvW and PVP.And since the complex systems are interconnected like that (creating exponentially larger complex system), you can't really try to balance small scale invidually and think it'll lead towards diversity and balance in the larger scale. The change will always happen on both scales at once due to how GW2's build system works. Therefore balancing one aspect always has a chance of compromising the balance of another aspect and all choices are ultimately about how much of an imbalance can be tolerated in each aspect (unless there's a way for some change to lead towards balance in every system). When things are balanced, more builds are considered viable and thus Kitty dares say that balance leads to diversity, not the other way around. But how to reach the balance to lead to build diversity? That's the big question devs are facing with every decision.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@LadyKitty.6120 said:When things are balanced, more builds are considered viable and thus Kitty dares say that balance leads to diversity, not the other way around. But how to reach the balance to lead to build diversity? That's the big question devs are facing with every decision.

Hi Kitty, Thanks again for your input.

I'd invite you to read the comment i just left above. Balance and diversity when looked at in the context of complexity are just two separate things, and each have two totally different consequences when tuned. One can be changed without effecting the other.

There is such a thing as build diversity that is unbalanced as well...consider the human race is the dominant alpha species on this planet, and how many species of animals we have just decimated by simply existing. Our capabilities far exceeded those of our competition, and right now there is no nerf bat in sight for us, other than ourselves... In this context the capacity of the human brain is overpowered.

Now let me posit to you this question. How would you go about balancing the capabilities of the human race? Would you nerf the human brain to the level of other animals? Or would you buff the adaptability of other creatures enough so to compete with the human race?

Both options are perfectly viable ways to balance the human race...but only one serves to increase diversity.

@LadyKitty.6120 said:And since the complex systems are interconnected like that (creating exponentially larger complex system), you can't really try to balance small scale individually and think it'll lead towards diversity and balance in the larger scale. The change will always happen on both scales at once due to how GW2's build system works. Therefore balancing one aspect always has a chance of compromising the balance of another aspect and all choices are ultimately about how much of an imbalance can be tolerated in each aspect

I wrote a longer response to this, but i'm gonna keep it short. You are correct in that there are multiple systems each with variance in the rules and goals of autonomous agents. This is why having splits between game modes is a good thing. If one thing is too strong in one mode, simple tuning can make it weaker without it effecting other systems. If the issue one mode has is a mechanical fault, in which a trait or skills mechanics are what's too strong, then there is a problem with trait, and it needs a rework. So long as when they make changes to mechanics, they don't have a negative effect on build diversity, then you can have the cake and eat it too.

[Nerah.8235]

The other part of the systems balance issue is the significant (and complicated) interactions between food items--utility items--traits--professional mechanics--stats (particularly concentration and expertise). There are quite a few problems related to just food interactions (i.e. endurance recovery on dodge, damage reduction food, condi cleanse foods). Consumables should be looked at across the board, and nerfed before traits and skills are adjusted.

[Straegen.2938]

Theorycrafting is a major component of RPGs. The more reliant classes/builds become on certain "must-have" traits/skills, the less interesting a RPG becomes in the long term. This is why having Scourges and Firebrands so dominant for so long in the WvW meta helps create a stale game mode.

Anet from day one should look at skills/traits that are overused and slowly reduced their effectiveness while increasing underused skills/trait effectiveness. This doesn't fix balance and the like but it enhances the long term enjoyment through diversity which in turn reduces general boredom or gameplay fatigue in a game.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Straegen.2938" said:Theorycrafting is a major component of RPGs. The more reliant classes/builds become on certain "must-have" traits/skills, the less interesting a RPG becomes in the long term. This is why having Scourges and Firebrands so dominant for so long in the WvW meta helps create a stale game mode.

Yes.

Anet from day one should look at skills/traits that are overused and slowly reduced their effectiveness while increasing underused skills/trait effectiveness. This doesn't fix balance and the like but it enhances the long term enjoyment through diversity which in turn reduces general boredom or gameplay fatigue in a game.

Let me pause you here because i think you've missed the point of the thread. Even if you buff a large set of useless skills to be useful... and even if you nerf all the crazy op skills on the most oppressive classes, if rangers still aren't adaptable to higher scale gameplay, they simply won't see a spot in zerg fights. You have to go beyond just buffing and nerfing things. This is what anet has been doing for years and it gets us no-where.

The entire thing requires a complete 180 in perspective about balance. In order to introduce diversity and by proxy balance, one has to understand first the idea of complex systems, and that WvW is itself a complex system. Beyond this, is that once we understand that complex systems feature adaptive autonomous agents (player characters), these autonomous agents will naturally produce heterogeneity so long as these agents have the ability to adapt in the first place...in the case of gw2, that means having many unique and functioning build options that allow them to adapt to all scales.

Just an example to get the point across, Lets say you play on a class like ranger. and you have an ability A which kind of sucks...does mediocre ranged damage, and maybe gives you a boon like regeneration or something on a 60 second cooldown

Now if you buff this skill to make it give you stability, 25 stacks of might, fury, quickness...then make it do a sick amount of single target melle damage on a 30 second cooldown. Would this skill allow the player to be taken in zerg gameplay?

The answer is no...because single target damage, boons that already exist in plentiful amounts in zergs , and melle on top of it for a ranger is almost useless in a zerg setting. So even though you buffed the F out of this skill, maybe you've made it more useful in 1v1 situations (where ranger is already good), you haven't given ranger any build diversity outside of that 1v1 scale...and now you've probably given players a reason to complain about ranger being overpowered in 1v1's....so then a few months later the skill gets nerfed again...

[LadyKitty.6120]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@LadyKitty.6120 said:When things are balanced, more builds are considered viable and thus Kitty dares say that balance leads to diversity, not the other way around. But how to reach the balance to lead to build diversity? That's the big question devs are facing with every decision.

Hi Kitty, Thanks again for your input.

I'd invite you to read the comment i just left above. Balance and diversity when looked at in the context of complexity are just two separate things, and each have two totally different consequences when tuned. One can be changed without effecting the other.To be honest, Kitty's not super-familiar with the actual complexity theory. In terms of GW2 build balance, she can't help but disagree about balance and build diversity being completely separate things. You can't really increase the demand for more diverse selection of builds without first changing balance to make the unused builds meet the demands of the players or creating new demand that doesn't completely overthrow the previous. (Unless the lack of demand is caused by people not being aware of capabilities of alternatives factually similar to ones in demand, which is also a large issue at least PVE-wise and like Kitty's tried to work hard with by posting videos of her raiding with alternative builds and benchmarking them, that can only be fixed by educating people about the alternatives.) Maybe in some other systems balance and diversity can be adjusted separately, but that's most likely not the case here.There is such a thing as build diversity that is unbalanced as well...consider the human race is the dominant alpha species on this planet, and how many species of animals we have just decimated by simply existing. Our capabilities far exceeded those of our competition, and right now there is no nerf bat in sight for us, other than ourselves... In this context the capacity of the human brain is overpowered.

Now let me posit to you this question. How would you go about balancing the capabilities of the human race? Would you nerf the human brain to the level of other animals? Or would you buff the adaptability of other creatures enough so to compete with the human race?

Both options are perfectly viable ways to balance the human race...but only one serves to increase diversity.This is kinda going to dangerous direction for MMO-forum. But coming from country with one of the highest levels of education, Kitty would rather present a third option: increase human race's intelligence and level of education. Currently many issues, especially the environmental ones, are caused by people not knowing better and since not everyone has the resources (time, energy etc...) to study and think about some important stuff and their wider consequences by themselves, people easily choose the most familiar beneficial option for themselves according to what they've been told instead of the option that'd benefit themselves and many other things in the wider scale. That's part of the reason why populism is on the rise but let's not delve any deeper into the politics here. But if people knew better, the destruction of ecosystems would slow down or even be prevented. Other creatures have more difficulties adapting than educated human has due to delicacy of many ecosystems.

@LadyKitty.6120 said:And since the complex systems are interconnected like that (creating exponentially larger complex system), you can't really try to balance small scale individually and think it'll lead towards diversity and balance in the larger scale. The change will always happen on both scales at once due to how GW2's build system works. Therefore balancing one aspect always has a chance of compromising the balance of another aspect and all choices are ultimately about how much of an imbalance can be tolerated in each aspect

I wrote a longer response to this, but i'm gonna keep it short. You are correct in that there are multiple systems each with variance in the rules and goals of autonomous agents. This is why having splits between game modes is a good thing. If one thing is too strong in one mode, simple tuning can make it weaker without it effecting other systems. If the issue one mode has is a mechanical fault, in which a trait or skills mechanics are what's too strong, then there is a problem with trait, and it needs a rework. So long as when they make changes to mechanics, they don't have a negative effect on build diversity, then you can have the cake and eat it too.They're mostly trying to balance by doing splits where they can, though even then they can't split large- and small-scale WvW unless they're completely split into separate gamemodes. However, ability to do splits is somewhat limited to tweaking numbers and sometimes to triggers. Any further adjustments require deeper changes to mechanics themselves by making skills/traits do something else than they currently do which affects all gamemodes and due to many of WvW's problems being mechanical ones instead of just numbers, fixing them is way more complicated. Looking at balance patches this far, they can't do a split to make a trait/skill to do different things depending on gamemode. For ex. completely removing a boon from some skill affects all gamemodes. (and "0" as a value seems to be invalid in most things like boon durations, so at the very minimum they can change the value to 0.000001 like they're planning on testing with some skill's damage multiplier on next balance patch, though stuff like "conditions removed" must be an integer.)For ex. reducing FB's F3-3's reflect dome duration would cause problems at reflecting mechanics at certain raid bosses like Matthias (which would lead to chronos being considered the only viable reflect again) and nerfing its condicleanses would make healbrand a horrible option for bosses with high condi pressure (for ex. Matthias, Slothasor and Soulless Horror) and nerfing condicleanses would most likely require changing skills/traits to do something else which would affect all gamemodes. Blocks have already been nerfed to give healbrand only 3 viable sources of blocks to share (4 if you use Mace) in PVE, one of which has 60s cooldown and healbrand with required boon output in PVE isn't very strong healer by itself as its heals rely on blocking stuff. Thus only reducing its stab output would nerf it and work towards diversity in WvW and PvP without reducing diversity in PVE. This is just one example of the problems there is to balancing and increasing diversity.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@LadyKitty.6120 said:To be honest, Kitty's not super-familiar with the actual complexity theory.I highly highly suggest going back to the original post and watching the video i linked there. You should also check out the video I've left in the 3rd comment. But for your troubles, I've linked them here now, because it's very important that you understand where i'm drawing my terminology, and conclusions from.

&

It's a very fascinating area of study. Personally, I've always been interested in it ever since i lived in Texas when i was younger. I always thought tornadoes were super cool and i was curious as to how they formed and where they really came from. Turns out tornadoes are born from Turbulence theory, which is a subset of Chaos Theory which derives from Complexity theory. So ya it can get a bit deep, but after studying on it for so long, you realize that complexity exists in nearly everything that exists in the world. For a while i never connected the dots with WvW, but at one point i took a look at how birds flock in the sky, and noted how similar it looks to how zerglings flock around each other during a zerg fight, and i felt compelled to do a bit of research into how WvW works as a complex system and it drove me to this conclusion about diversity.

Without at least watching those videos and gaining a basic understanding of the subject, you can't really know where my argument even comes from.

@LadyKitty.6120 said:This is kinda going to dangerous direction for MMO-forum. But coming from country with one of the highest levels of education, Kitty would rather present a third option: increase human race's intelligence and level of education. Currently many issues, especially the environmental ones, are caused by people not knowing better and since not everyone has the resources (time, energy etc...) to study and think about some important stuff and their wider consequences by themselves, people easily choose the most familiar beneficial option for themselves according to what they've been told instead of the option that'd benefit themselves and many other things in the wider scale. That's part of the reason why populism is on the rise but let's not delve any deeper into the politics here. But if people knew better, the destruction of ecosystems would slow down or even be prevented. Other creatures have more difficulties adapting than educated human has due to delicacy of many ecosystems.

Keep in mind that we are still talking about gw2 and that the examples i conjure up are all meant to draw parallels to the game. The same works in reverse, so taking your solution is the same as asking Firebrands and Scourges to politely step aside so that other classes can play the game. But this is just not how the world works, and this isn't how the game works, and it would be rather foolish to believe that we can convince the community that rolling metas for years on end is detrimental to the game. It's like trying to convince a virus not to make me sick...it's going to do it's best to make me sick so that it can spread to other creatures...because that's how it's able to survive. Likewise, Firebrand Scourge right now is "the best way" to kill others in zerg fights.

So again, look up those videos and try to understand where i'm coming from here with the whole complexity theory thing. I would try and answer every point of your comment, but it's hard because i'm approaching it from my standpoint to which you won't fully receive until you gain an understanding on the subject.

@LadyKitty.6120 said:For ex. reducing FB's F3-3's reflect dome duration would cause problems at reflecting mechanics at certain raid bosses like Matthias (which would lead to chronos being considered the only viable reflect again) and nerfing its condicleanses would make healbrand a horrible option for bosses with high condi pressure (for ex. Matthias, Slothasor and Soulless Horror) and nerfing condicleanses would most likely require changing skills/traits to do something else which would affect all gamemodes.

This to me is a diversity issue. Let's take your example to the extreme and say that we just completely eliminate the reflect dome from FB, leaving Chronomancer the only one with reflection. Let's also remove Heal-brands cleansing capabilities. Now because other classes can do those things (engineer/chronomancer) then build diversity for Engineer and Chronomancer goes up at the expense of Firebrand which goes down. If you were to make balance changes to these classes without reducing build diversity, you would offer Firebrand something that makes them unique for the game mode, something that only THEY can provide... whatever that something is (it can be anything you want to put your imagination to) then that is what makes them a viable choice to pick for your raid, and chronomancer can be happy with it's reflection thing if that's what makes chronomancer unique for it's place in your squad.

Extrapolate this for every class... they all need to bring something unique to the table that makes them viable choices for a given scenario. The more unique options they have to choose from, the more diverse compositions become possible. The idea of balance is no where in this picture,

If a unique option is too strong, then that is a balance issue which you would then change with tuning. If a unique option is too strong mechanically in one game mode and not the other, than something is wrong with the mechanic, and it usually implies that the mechanic is not adjusted by scale (which should be invariant across all scales). and changes to the mechanic become necessary. So long as these changes do not diminish build diversity, then the change in mechanic shouldn't have a negative impact on any particular mode.

Just to provide an example, is that if stability is a very strong mechanic in WvW and useless in PVE openworld, then there is something wrong scaling of the mechanic. Does it need a change in the mechanics or just a tuning of balance? The answer to how to go about balancing it would be to go the route that gives you the most diversity. If changing stability for something that provides more diversity (which would mean changing it to something that is invariant across all scales) means that the change would be a net positive as it would be both useful in PVE openworld and WvW.

[God.2708]

SIGH

Or, and this would likely be the most productive thing Anet could do, you could adjust the goals of the mode. Classes already have several metric tons of unique things they bring to the table, or share with only a couple of other classes/specializations. The issue is only one of those is valued. Killing large groups of people fast. When looking through that paradigm then it doesn't matter how much you increase diversity, there will always be at minimum 1 at most 5 classes viable (due to the 5 party cap of most abilities).

Here I'll try and speak your language. In an adaptable complex system, moderate diversity results in best cooperation. If diversity exceeds a certain point than defectors take over and cooperation is lost.

Like the commonly held assumption that rangers and thieves are useless to zergs and thus there needs to be an increase in diversity so they can be brought (and failing to recognize that in the games current state all that would do is ultimately replace scourge in an arms race). Rangers and Thieves both have several different unique things to bring to groups, from barrage being a highly effective AoE damage skill on a weapon that can also pick off enemies from an incredibly high range, things like stance share, or the thieves unique preparations that allow for laying complex traps. Edit for clarification: If you increase the diversity of them continuously to the point where they can step into a zerg and always be useful, then players no longer need to communicate to ascertain goals and ensure parts are 'in their place' so to speak. It simply becomes a cloud that constantly randomly adapts.

However it is all made irrelevant because the rule of the system wants easy and simple victories on a flat field because nothing else is worth doing. So there is an emergence of selecting the simplest most efficient builds for doing so that meet the following criteria: Can stop CC, Can kill many people fast.

An increase in diversity does nothing, the issue is with the goals of the complex system itself, and this is what ANET should be occupied with (and are, albeit ridiculously slowly, in the form of alliances which will allow them to target other things)

IN THE MEANTIME the thing they can do quickly and abruptly is balance changes. The goal with these is not to increase diversity, it's to force adaptation to give the players something to do. Yes it is running in circles. That's fine, in the end it's a game. The point is to run in circles.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:Consider this. Imagine a single trait, that could belong to any class that did the following:

“Your heal utilities can now effect up to 5 allies.”

Without even touching any heal utilities in their current useless state, you’ve gained for ANY Class this trait could belong to, immense value in build diversity. Go over to the healing utility wiki and just imagine what a simple trait choice could do for single target healing utilities if they could now effect up to 5 allies via a trait choice. Useless traits you would have never though to use now become very interesting in a group setting.

This sort of approach vs just buffing each one individually lends itself to more diversity in a more simplistic way, but yielding a greater pallet of results, and is easier to identify problem skills.

mmm, adding aoe or more aoe to some classes would work. more aoe to this mode in general should be viewed carefully however. in that spirit tho traits like that if varied enough and not simply "is now aoe" sounds interesting. functionality changes are great imo. you would still have to buff all the useless stuff.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@God.2708 said:An increase in diversity does nothing, the issue is with the goals of the complex system itself, and this is what ANET should be occupied with (and are, albeit ridiculously slowly, in the form of alliances which will allow them to target other things)

As someone who has been part of and played in a self organized mega alliance (probably to the order of a thousand players, both active/inactive and maybe 10 guilds total.)I can tell you, just from experience that Alliances won't solve the issues we face right now in the game mode in regards to diversity/balance.

Now would they make the game mode more fun?Yes.Why? Because it makes the mode more complex. Fighting in an alliance and coordinating with other zergs adds a dimension of play that goes beyond a simple zerg v zerg fight.

But will it change build diversity?No.Why? Because alliances introduce their complexity across multiple maps. There can only be around 80 people present in a map que, so there is a limit to the scale at which our builds will have an effect in an environment. Alliances will introduce complexity in the same way that a high functioning war game would allow commanders to make very strategic plays and strategies to win a grand scale outcome rather than deciding smaller factors like killing a player. Just like how army generals don't even know who is on the ground in a battle, they only oversee large scale stratagems and tactics that help win a number of battles to achieve a long term goal that helps them win a war.

This is just based on my experience of actually being in an alliance and first hand seeing the level of communication and cooperation involved. Builds don't change at all, but a new array of tactics and strategy come about and greatly enhance the success of even a not-so-good guild win against a well organized fight guild that lacks the overarching strategy an alliance provides.

[God.2708]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@God.2708 said:An increase in diversity does nothing, the issue is with the goals of the complex system itself, and this is what ANET should be occupied with (and are, albeit ridiculously slowly, in the form of alliances which will allow them to target other things)This is just based on my experience of actually being in an alliance and first hand seeing the level of communication and cooperation involved. Builds don't change at all, but a new array of tactics and strategy come about and greatly enhance the success of even a not-so-good guild win against a well organized fight guild that lacks the overarching strategy an alliance provides.

The key part in that quote is 'which will allow them to target other things'. Anet has explicitly stated they've put on hold various things like reward system reworks, map overhauls, and numerous other things till they've sorted the alliance system out. The alliance system itself will not change anything. It is still the same players in the same complex system and thus will trend towards whatever adaption is favorable for the goal, which is also unchanged.

[Obtena.7952]

I love the discussion here ... I think what Kitty lists is a good line of thought.

I believe that you don't get balance and build diversity at the same time unless class development/design are in a very specific set of parameters. Balance is fundamentally performance equivalence over some builds between all classes and build diversity is deviations (meaningful) between as many builds as possible in each class ... So basically, if you want both, the core baseline of performance for all the classes needs to be exactly the same and sprinkled on top of that are only a small number of significant differentiators between and within the classes existing that players can choose from. That's certainly not a situation we have in GW2.

Now, as an example ... SWTOR comes closer to that situation, at least when only looking at DPS roles over the classes. Roles is just another confounding factor in balance ... so thankfully we don't have that in GW2.

Personally, I think Kitty's first point is the most interesting way to address balance and diversity. I don't think balance is achieved with adjustments on the player side, i.e., class skills. I believe you get balance when you have more than 1 way to win that requires different or even multiple strategies. Maybe that seems counter intuitive because you could argue players are just going to find the ONE best way ... where this approach gets REALLY good is when there are multiple things you have to do to win, all picked from these different approaches and there ISN'T just one best way ... bye bye meta. The holy grail IMO is where those multiple things are determined dynamically real time based on group composition and change as the encounters progress.

[Swagger.1459]

Build diversity here died when the game launched. HoT did a better job with bringing roles, but not nearly anything super. This game still struggles to offer quality roles outside of damage.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Obtena.7952" said:I love the discussion here ... I think what Kitty lists is a good line of thought.

I believe that you don't get balance and build diversity at the same time unless class development/design are in a very specific set of parameters. Balance is fundamentally performance equivalence over some builds between all classes and build diversity is deviations (meaningful) between as many builds as possible in each class ... So basically, if you want both, the core baseline of performance for all the classes needs to be exactly the same and sprinkled on top of that are only a small number of significant differentiators between and within the classes existing that players can choose from. That's certainly not a situation we have in GW2.

Now, as an example ... SWTOR comes closer to that situation, at least when only looking at DPS roles over the classes. Roles is just another confounding factor in balance ... so thankfully we don't have that in GW2.

Thanks, i'm glad you appreciate the discussion, because to me it's very important topic that needs to be discussed.

"Balance is fundamentally performance equivalence over some builds between all classes and build diversity is deviations (meaningful) between as many builds as possible in each class ... "

This is precisely it! Many people struggle to understand this, and the two often get confused for the same thing, but they are two independent entities that have an effect on one another. I pointed out that balance results in homogeneity, while diversity results in heterogeneous structure. The extrapolation i made was that complex systems in nature almost always feature heterogeneous groupings, and that leads to competition, which is what guild wars 2 is lacking...meaningful competition among builds.

So basically, if you want both, the core baseline of performance for all the classes needs to be exactly the same and sprinkled on top of that are only a small number of significant differentiators between and within the classes existing that players can choose from. That's certainly not a situation we have in GW2.

i'll just clear this up real fast. You can have both Diversity and balance, so long as the performance of builds are generally equal in performance, but each can offer NUMEROUS significant differentiation. If we have builds that are exactly the same, we get homogeneous grouping (this is current gw2 status) if we have builds that offer numerous differentiation, we get heterogeneous groupings (What gw2 needs) so long as these differentiation's aren't more powerful than any other, we can have both balance and diversity. We see this right now in nature all around us...every living organism has it's own way of surviving and each are effective at it, in their own way, and nature has it's way of balancing it out with it's own set of buff/nerf hammers.

I mentioned above that a reason we lack diversity is because there are many skills, traits and mechanics that aren't invariant with scale. So classes that lack the ability to adapt to other scales won't see play in those scales. It's the reason we have a post about the sad ranger main that gets kicked from zerg squads. It's because he doesn't have the diversity in place for his class to adapt to a zerg setting. If he just had build options that scaled invariantly, then he would have options that would allow him to play in zergs and thus once everyone gets the memo, we will start seeing rangers in zerg fights. The more of these options exist, the more builds we will see, and the less homogenous the meta will become.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Swagger.1459" said:Build diversity here died when the game launched. HoT did a better job with brining roles, but not nearly anything super. This game still struggles to offer quality roles outside of damage.

Hey Swagger,

Let me just link to you one of my comments specifically about roles from earlier on in the thread. Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity, and like you point out, it's a big reason we still have balance issues (in fact issues far worse) than what we've had before.

! "You are correct in that scale is indeed a huge factor here.!! Almost all complex systems start from very basic constituents. A good example of a complex system would be how air molecules moving around in the atmosphere can go on to create supercell storms and tornadoes. So at an elementary scale, things can be quite simple and as we go into larger scales they gain complexity.!! This is the reason why it’s critical to address issues on the small scale to tackle large scale problems, and it’s why I proposed diversity being addressed in the context of the individual.!! When it comes down to diversity, the key component is that diverse autonomous agents are more able to adapt. In the context of builds this adaptation is when a particular build shows up, there is another build that can compete with it, and this is invariant with scale. The larger the system becomes, the more opportunities for autonomous agents to adapt appear, so long as they are actually able to adapt in the first place (build diversity).! If builds are limited in that they can not adapt, either to other builds in small or large scales, then you can see how this issue is pervasive on all scales.!! Just another example just to be more clear. If s/d condi thief is the only viable build available to a thief, and this build is good only in 1v1. Then as the system becomes more complex (more players become involved) then the condi thief will try to adapt to the larger scale with a different type of condi build that may be better in 5v5. If such an option doesn’t exist, then the thief can not adapt to the 5v5 situation with a condi build.!! This is essentially what happens to classes like thieves, mesmers and rangers. They have builds that work only at a particular small scale and have little to no build options that work in larger and larger scales so they don’t see play in Zerg content, because the diversity doesn’t exist for them. This leaves player classes that are able to adapt (ie; scourges) have less competition, and it becomes no surprise that scourges take up the majority of player real estate in a squad."...! ..."Anet has been doing the total opposite of trying to achieve build diversity, but instead has been going for what is called "purity of purpose" or more commonly known as assigning classes "roles".!! If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...i'm sure you've heard people say the following.!! "Thief is a +1 and decapper class"! "Mesmer is a good duelist 1v1er"! "Holosmith's and necromancers are teamfighters"!! As you can see these all deal with the scale of the fight, from 1v1's up to teamfighters (which scale to 5+ people). Because anet has pigeon-holed builds into specific roles by scale, they now have less build options that allow them to adapt to perform in other scales because in anets eyes it was "silly" to have a +1 thief class to be a good teamfighter for example. This line of thinking was absolutely detrimental to balance of the game and it's one of the reasons we are in the balance/diversity mess we have right now. It's also the reason why even the most recent nerfs and buffs to skills are not going to solve anything. Like the scourge nerf you mentioned above, it may increase diversity, but it is doing so in the completely wrong way (it actually ends up DECREASING diversity, specifically for necromancer in order to try and decrease competition, which only by proxy, will increase diversity elsewhere to other classes.) But we still have the fact that none of the classes can adapt to zerg fighting...so what's gonna happen is we are going to bump into the paradox...we will just continue to see scourges, and the meta game will continue to be the same."...

[Swagger.1459]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:Build diversity here died when the game launched. HoT did a better job with brining roles, but not nearly anything super. This game still struggles to offer quality roles outside of damage.

Hey Swagger,

Let me just link to you one of my comments specifically about roles from earlier on in the thread. Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity, and like you point out, it's a big reason we still have balance issues (in fact issues far worse) than what we've had before.

! "You are correct in that scale is indeed a huge factor here.!! Almost all complex systems start from very basic constituents. A good example of a complex system would be how air molecules moving around in the atmosphere can go on to create supercell storms and tornadoes. So at an elementary scale, things can be quite simple and as we go into larger scales they gain complexity.!! This is the reason why it’s critical to address issues on the small scale to tackle large scale problems, and it’s why I proposed diversity being addressed in the context of the individual.!! When it comes down to diversity, the key component is that diverse autonomous agents are more able to adapt. In the context of builds this adaptation is when a particular build shows up, there is another build that can compete with it, and this is invariant with scale. The larger the system becomes, the more opportunities for autonomous agents to adapt appear, so long as they are actually able to adapt in the first place (build diversity).! If builds are limited in that they can not adapt, either to other builds in small or large scales, then you can see how this issue is pervasive on all scales.!! Just another example just to be more clear. If s/d condi thief is the only viable build available to a thief, and this build is good only in 1v1. Then as the system becomes more complex (more players become involved) then the condi thief will try to adapt to the larger scale with a different type of condi build that may be better in 5v5. If such an option doesn’t exist, then the thief can not adapt to the 5v5 situation with a condi build.!! This is essentially what happens to classes like thieves, mesmers and rangers. They have builds that work only at a particular small scale and have little to no build options that work in larger and larger scales so they don’t see play in Zerg content, because the diversity doesn’t exist for them. This leaves player classes that are able to adapt (ie; scourges) have less competition, and it becomes no surprise that scourges take up the majority of player real estate in a squad."...! ..."Anet has been doing the total opposite of trying to achieve build diversity, but instead has been going for what is called "purity of purpose" or more commonly known as assigning classes "roles".!! If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...i'm sure you've heard people say the following.!! "Thief is a +1 and decapper class"! "Mesmer is a good duelist 1v1er"! "Holosmith's and necromancers are teamfighters"!! As you can see these all deal with the scale of the fight, from 1v1's up to teamfighters (which scale to 5+ people). Because anet has pigeon-holed builds into specific roles by scale, they now have less build options that allow them to adapt to perform in other scales because in anets eyes it was "silly" to have a +1 thief class to be a good teamfighter for example. This line of thinking was absolutely detrimental to balance of the game and it's one of the reasons we are in the balance/diversity mess we have right now. It's also the reason why even the most recent nerfs and buffs to skills are not going to solve anything. Like the scourge nerf you mentioned above, it may increase diversity, but it is doing so in the completely wrong way (it actually ends up DECREASING diversity, specifically for necromancer in order to try and decrease competition, which only by proxy, will increase diversity elsewhere to other classes.) But we still have the fact that none of the classes can adapt to zerg fighting...so what's gonna happen is we are going to bump into the paradox...we will just continue to see scourges, and the meta game will continue to be the same."...

"Roles are the exact opposite of build diversity". No, they are not. They are part of build diversity. And balance is just as important of a factor, as are the mechanics (profession designs, cc system, stealth, player stats and a ton others) that govern combat, as build diversity.

"If you notice, roles are usually described by the type of scale the class is more apt at performing well in...". Yes, in GW2, because Anet designed the game to not have meaningful roles or playstyles outside of damage roles. The team intentionally designed the game that way, so players are mentally stuck. In every other mmo game, that has classes, build diversity means offering various roles to play (tank, healer, non-heal support, cc, melee damage, ranged damage... and so on), but gw2 wanted to reinvent the wheel with "Damage, Control, Support" anti-trinity design.

As interesting as this discussion may be, why not come up with specific ways you feel professions can be improved to have more build diversity? It would probably be more productive, and interesting for the devs, if you came up with actual ideas, not just theories of X topic?

[Obtena.7952]

I believe roles is minimizing diversity for sure; the 'space' of builds is finite; there are only so many different builds ... and if some of that space is occupied by role-specific builds, that results in fewer builds for a specific situation. The fact that GW2 does not have roles allows the whole space of build variation to open up to all situations.

@Swagger.1459 said:As interesting as this discussion may be, why not come up with specific ways you feel professions can be improved to have more build diversity? It would probably be more productive, and interesting for the devs, if you came up with actual ideas, not just theories of X topic?

The fact you put this up shows you didn't really understand the discussion. This game has TONS of diversity in builds already; there is no shortage of builds a person can make for a class that are different in a meaningful, non-trivial way.

[Swagger.1459]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:As interesting as this discussion may be, why not come up with specific ways you feel professions can be improved to have more build diversity? It would probably be more productive, and interesting for the devs, if you came up with actual ideas, not just theories of X topic?

The fact you put this up shows you didn't really understand the discussion. This game has TONS of diversity in builds already.

I addressed a couple of statements from the op, and my points stand.

Sorry, but GW2 falls more on the “illusion of diversity” side, and that was clear when the game launched. HoT and PoF made attempts to change the game from mostly being a 1 dimensional damage role game, but it’s no where near quality. And a far cry from what the original game had offered to players.