"Remove Amulets, increase cooldown by 500%, etc" - Anet never learns

[Fashion Mage.3712]

Eventually everyone is only going to run Berserker's builds because that'll be the only amulet left.

 

Why balance the game properly when you can just remove everything instead? Truly genius. /s

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > The exact definition of balance means that two (or more) things have to be equal. This is an inherently impossible task because two things that are different can never be equal until they are the same.

>

> Very true. Nerf complaints will never end so long as Build diversity exists. We may clap ourselves on the back now, that we managed to take down a few more outliers, but what happens in a few weeks when the new meta is discovered. Now that Ranger, Necro, and Engi are weakened, what of Burn Guardian. It's an emerging build that's starting to gain traction. What of power classes that were on the verge of being overpowered, but not quite at that level (Power Rev). With toughness removed, that may just push them over the edge.

>

> We return to square one. Asking for a new set of OP's to be nerfed. We remove a few more amulets perhaps. Maybe Berserker is removed and everyone is forced into Assassin... in order to balance out classes that naturally have high crit chance and make them more similar to classes that don't. Perhaps we ask for sustain nerfs for classes with good sustain (Rev, Ele) in order to bring them in line with classes that don't (Mirage).

>

> Soon we ask for evades and invulns to be brought down on classes like thief and ele because reverse power creep has made those mechanics OP. Damage gets nerfed so low that having evasion uptime that high is oppressive. So we give DrD an endurance penalty and remove the evade from twist of fate.

 

 

That's right. It's a never ending cycle so long as Anet and it's community keep up this idea that balance is nothing more than "Buffs and nerfs."

 

> @"Kuma.1503" said:

> PvP will never be balanced so long as variety exists. If we want classes to feel fun and satisfying to play, we have to allow for some things to be just a tad broken. We have to accept the fact that some will do certain things better than others.We also have to accept that certain metas will reward certain qualities over others. Only way to prevent that is to make all of those qualities the same. Homogenization

 

There is fortunately an answer to the problem. We can take ques exactly from Naturally occurring complex systems. This is the idea of the opposite of homogenization, which is Heterogeneity. Highly Diverse systems end up creating their own natural balancing mechanisms via competition, among agents that are always seeking to achieve some autonomous goal. If these agents are more and more diverse and still able to achieve goals, then you can have many many many different builds all competing, and the differential between what is over-powered and what is under-powered becomes like an inverse square, so if there exists an op build on warrior for example, there are a greater number of builds that are able to compete and counter that op build, and balance is maintained in this way. Through competition.

 

The way to introduce heterogeneity is to just make the game more diverse, allowing more diversity in builds, and making sure this diversity allows them to achieve autonomous goals. whatever those goals are.

 

There was a big thread i made a very very long time ago that was basically trying to explore what was going on with balance, and how to look at it from a more scientific prespective. The conclusion i came to is the same conclusion you've came to as well so i'm glad that there are still people like you out there, able to think critically about the topic (unlike some folks)

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1096206/#Comment_1096206

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

There are a very limited number of changes that can be made for pvp balance. Ideally we would be having class and skill reworks every patch to drive the game in the direction players want, but that will never happen because of how much work it would require. Removing/changing overperforming stat amulets, increasing the cd on the overpowered skills, and changing damage coefficients are some of the only ways that we will see balance for this game.

[Mini Crinny.6190]

> @"Tao.5096" said:

> > @"Tharan.9085" said:

> > Oh yeah, bringing unholy sanctuary in line with other lifesaving passives is such a bad move (oh wait, it still has a 3min shorter cd)

>

> The entire idea of giving any of those passives more than 30 seconds is stupid.

>

> Passives should be passives, tweaking certain aspects of the builds - as it was back when we had points to distribute over traits (not perfect, but hundreds of times better than now).

 

I think i remember CMC mentioning that these passive traits were designed for PvE and not PvP or WvW and if he could put a 3000 sec CD on them, he would

 

[Burnfall.9573]

> @"Fashion Mage.3712" said:

> Eventually everyone is only going to run Berserker's builds because that'll be the only amulet left.

>

> Why balance the game properly when you can just remove everything instead? Truly genius. /s

 

it is called, dealing with the symptoms instead of the root cause

 


 

-Guild Wars 2 Balance In A Nutshell-

 

-**Problem-**

- Fix-Symptom

- Ignore-Cause

 

-**Problem-**

- Fix-Amulet/Symptom

- Ignore-Profession/Cause

 

**Reminder**-this is not the first time Anet removed amulets

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kulvar.1239]

> @"Edge.8724" said:

> > @"Stallic.2397" said:

> > Paladin amulet was unnecessary. If 100 toughness and vitality was removed could it be put somewhere else? Like precision and power??

>

> At this point, why not removing all amulets except of Berserker, Viper and Mender?

 

Only keep Celestial instead.

[Kuma.1503]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> [ Snip because comment is long, but brings up many valid points. ]

 

I'd also like to tackle this from a more human perspective. What do people tend to find more "fun" homogeneity or heterogeneity?

Unfortunately, I'm no statistician, but I can speak from personal experience.

 

Imagine Anet embraces the path of homogeneity. By virtue, this means that every class is functionally the same. I doubt that they would literally make the same class 9 times. What you'd be more likely to see is 9 very similar classes with the only distinguishing factor between them being "flavor." Each use the same method to achieve the same goal, but one has slightly different VFX, and SFX. Perhaps gameplay mechanics have you pressing your buttons in a difference sequence, but what is actually taking place is the same.

 

What you get is 9 very similar playstyles which limits the appeal of your game. Once the novelty of whichever build you're playing wears off, you'll be left searching for something to give you that sense of discovery again, the feeling of "newness". When you fail to find it, you get bored... perhaps one of the worst fates imaginable for what is supposed to be a fun recreational activity.

 

What if Anet pursues the alternate path? One unfortunate concession you have to make is that you will encounter builds that feel inherently unfair to fight. However, while you may dislike fighting that buld, there are a dozen other builds in the game that have to be approached differently, and perhaps you enjoy those 11 other matchups. You take the good with the bad, and subconsciously, when fighting the matchups you do enjoy, you think back to the matchup you don't. You compare that experience, and using that context you're able to determine "this is fun".

 

Perhaps you take a more inward focus. You acknowledge that warriors are OP, but why do you care? You're a mother flipping ninja! You just took out 3 guys in the blink of an eye, using your superior knowledge of your class and mechanical skill. You feel proud of what you accomplished, and that feeling trumps any frustration you may have with the state of warrior on the current meta.

 

Once the novelty of being a ninja wears off, you can play a mage, and when you do you feel powerful. You weave together spells masterfully and watch as health bars explode. You're having fun.

 

For this reason, I continue to encourage fixing what doesn't work. Classes like Druid, Chrono, and Scourge. I have little desire to see what currently functions well get destroyed.

 

 

[Tao.5096]

> @"Kuma.1503" said:

> What if Anet pursues the alternate path? One unfortunate concession you have to make is that you will encounter builds that feel inherently unfair to fight. However, while you may dislike fighting that buld, there are a dozen other builds in the game that have to be approached differently, and perhaps you enjoy those 11 other matchups. You take the good with the bad, and subconsciously, when fighting the matchups you do enjoy, you think back to the matchup you don't. You compare that experience, and using that context you're able to determine "this is fun".

>

> Perhaps you take a more inward focus. You acknowledge that warriors are OP, but why do you care? You're a mother flipping ninja! You just took out 3 guys in the blink of an eye, using your superior knowledge of your class and mechanical skill. You feel proud of what you accomplished, and that feeling trumps any frustration you may have with the state of warrior on the current meta.

>

 

People will never acknowledge having fun when they play with a Custom build against Meta build and can't beat it because what matters is build and not personal skill and knowledge on the game.

 

As it may happen in some cases, Meta builds should be 5~10% better than Custom builds due to synergy with teammates.

 

Not 60~100% better on every single encounter...

 

 

[Kuma.1503]

> @"Tao.5096" said:

 

> People will never acknowledge having fun when they play with a Custom build against Meta build and can't beat it because what matters is build and not personal skill and knowledge on the game.

>

> As it may happen in some cases, Meta builds should be 5~10% better than Custom builds due to synergy with teammates.

>

> Not 60~100% better on every single encounter...

>

 

You're right. When this happens, it feels awful. What some people might not realize is that this isn't a product of creating a diverse game, this is a product of poor balance.

 

I'll give you an example from a game that I often bring up, that did embrace homogenization in the pursuit of balance.

 

In WoW, ranged classes were nerfed... a lot. It got to the point where abilities and traits which would help these classes kite and get off a cast got systematically removed one by one.

 

If one ranged class could kite, it was broken compared to the competition. Not broken due to power creep, broken because it merely *functions*.

 

What we have now is a system where, if you play ranged, you feel entirely up to the mercy of your melee overlords. Don't bother trying to kite, they have more mobility than you and they **will** close the gap. Don't bother trying to get off a cast, if they're a rogue, they'll chain stuns into silence into their many other interrupts and lock you out until death. Why did this happen? It's not because melee is power crept. It's because options were removed from player's hands. Options that would have allowed them to outplay their opponents in these scenarios.

 

As just one example. As a frost mage, don't even bother trying to fight a feral druid. Roots and snares are the crux of your ability to self peel yourself. A cat will just shapeshift, cleanse the root and then proceed to stick to you like glue, inturrupting your casts, and out dpsing you.

 

Nerfs can bring this on just as easily as buffing can. Knowing this, why not aim to **balance correctly**, fix what is fundamentally flawed, and choose the path that is the most fun?

 

 

[apharma.3741]

Now the morons that called for knights to be removed want berserker and assassins, so long risk/reward hello easy mode hipster sustain balance.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Kuma.1503" said:

> > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > [ Snip because comment is long, but brings up many valid points. ]

> I'd also like to tackle this from a more human perspective. What do people tend to find more "fun" homogeneity or heterogeneity?

> Unfortunately, I'm no statistician, but I can speak from personal experience.

> Imagine Anet embraces the path of homogeneity. By virtue, this means that every class is functionally the same. I doubt that they would literally make the same class 9 times. What you'd be more likely to see is 9 very similar classes with the only distinguishing factor between them being "flavor." Each use the same method to achieve the same goal, but one has slightly different VFX, and SFX. Perhaps gameplay mechanics have you pressing your buttons in a difference sequence, but what is actually taking place is the same.

>

> What you get is 9 very similar playstyles which limits the appeal of your game. Once the novelty of whichever build you're playing wears off, you'll be left searching for something to give you that sense of discovery again, the feeling of "newness". When you fail to find it, you get bored... perhaps one of the worst fates imaginable for what is supposed to be a fun recreational activity.

>

 

Good observation. In my own analysis, there is nothing that really points to what would be more fun. There are plenty of games that are perfectly balanced games like Chess, Monopoly, and Fortnite in which the game is more or less homogenized/standardized, and they are still fun and competitive games. But none the less, noone in these games has any differentiation over anyone else, and that is a key part of their balance. Everyone has equal Health, Equal starting points, equal opportunities, and it all comes down to your decision making and nothing more than that. Guild Wars 2, because it has classes, is just not like these games.

 

> What if Anet pursues the alternate path? One unfortunate concession you have to make is that you will encounter builds that feel inherently unfair to fight. However, while you may dislike fighting that buld, there are a dozen other builds in the game that have to be approached differently, and perhaps you enjoy those 11 other matchups. You take the good with the bad, and subconsciously, when fighting the matchups you do enjoy, you think back to the matchup you don't. You compare that experience, and using that context you're able to determine "this is fun".

>

> Perhaps you take a more inward focus. You acknowledge that warriors are OP, but why do you care? You're a mother flipping ninja! You just took out 3 guys in the blink of an eye, using your superior knowledge of your class and mechanical skill. You feel proud of what you accomplished, and that feeling trumps any frustration you may have with the state of warrior on the current meta.

>

> Once the novelty of being a ninja wears off, you can play a mage, and when you do you feel powerful. You weave together spells masterfully and watch as health bars explode. You're having fun.

>

> For this reason, I continue to encourage fixing what doesn't work. Classes like Druid, Chrono, and Scourge. I have little desire to see what currently functions well get destroyed.

 

In the same token, Highly diverse games like gw2 can also be fun, for the exact reasons you mention in this quotation. Although when we think about how things self balance, you have to think about how self balance should move towards equilibrium...the state in which ["having too big of a brain actually causes you to become less effficient"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio)

These equilibrium's are essentially trade-offs. The bigger the brain, the bigger the body, and the more energy is required for consumption to keep it functioning. So if you want to go op-ninja form to kill three people, the equivalent reward should be met with an equivalent risk, and this is where the trade-off mechanisms that SHOULD exist in the game come in to equalize builds that could potentially over-perform. The current trade-off's currently in the game are not real equilibrium mechanics, which is why i hate them so much, but you can see why people wanted trade-offs. What people really wanted without knowing they wanted it are these equilibrium mechanics.

 

[Burnfall.9573]

> @"apharma.3741" said:

> Now the morons that called for knights to be removed want berserker and assassins, so long risk/reward hello easy mode hipster sustain balance.

 

**reminder-** if each Professions were designed healthy and competitive with risk vs reward factors and having each Professions play their respective individual roles , would removal of amulet make such difference? think about it??

 

hint....Guild Wars 1 didn't use amulets

[Psycoprophet.8107]

> @"Mini Crinny.6190" said:

> > @"Tao.5096" said:

> > > @"Tharan.9085" said:

> > > Oh yeah, bringing unholy sanctuary in line with other lifesaving passives is such a bad move (oh wait, it still has a 3min shorter cd)

> >

> > The entire idea of giving any of those passives more than 30 seconds is stupid.

> >

> > Passives should be passives, tweaking certain aspects of the builds - as it was back when we had points to distribute over traits (not perfect, but hundreds of times better than now).

>

> I think i remember CMC mentioning that these passive traits were designed for PvE and not PvP or WvW and if he could put a 3000 sec CD on them, he would

>

 

Yeah so instead of being good at their job and splitting the function to somthing usefull and not broken in pvp or making a decision to change the skill and to what before the patch they make the passive traits useless further reducing options and build deversity. Well done.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

A few classes were op when using couple of the amulets but the rest of the roster weren't so it's the amulets that are the issue not those few builds?

[Master Ketsu.4569]

It's true that a lot of these are "feels bad" nerfs rather than true reworks of actual problems.

 

But I just gotta say Unholy Sanctuary is one of the better parts of this patch. Get out of jail free passives are braindead and should all be purged.

 

 

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"mistsim.2748" said:

> > Big brain fact - balancing is easier when there are less things to balance.

>

> Actually this isn’t a fact.

 

True.

 

Silly to say that the patch in February solved powercreep too. Powercreep occurs when something is well above the power curve. Shifting the power curve down instead of the actual outliers may not actually fix the outliers, and in shifting the power curve down... if certain skills don't follow, it just creates all new outliers which was exactly the case.

 

And now build diversity is getting trashed. It's not a very fun situation. Even if there's less amulets to balance around(which I don't even think has ever been much of a moot point for a long time) there's even less build options now. Fun is taking a back seat to balance and that stinks.

[wevh.2903]

> @"Burnfall.9573" said:

> Anet never learns is correct, making Partial Treatment is history repeating itself all over again. Necromancer Profession nerfed while Revenant a non-condition Profession is favored in its place

>

> **REVENANT PROFESSION IS NOT A NECROMANCER PROFESSION!!!**

>

> **SHAME!!**

>

> Hey! don't forget the usual **PVP ONLY**

>

> **WITH 8 CONSECUTIVE YEARS.....STILL FORGOT ABOUT TOXIC STEALTH MECHANIC AGAIN??!!**

 

Stealth is a toxic mechanic only for low rating players quite a mistery xd

[apharma.3741]

> @"Burnfall.9573" said:

> > @"apharma.3741" said:

> > Now the morons that called for knights to be removed want berserker and assassins, so long risk/reward hello easy mode hipster sustain balance.

>

> **reminder-** if each Professions were designed healthy and competitive with risk vs reward factors and having each Professions play their respective individual roles , would removal of amulet make such difference? think about it??

>

> hint....Guild Wars 1 didn't use amulets

 

Amulets (stats) are balanced against each other with professions as a factor, if classes were properly balanced as long as amulets gave equal stats or at least equal in use cases then there would be no need to remove an amulet as the trade offs are in the stats. Example: Knights you take a lot less damage but you do very little. That warriors and necromancers who would naturally get the most out of an amulet like Cavalier and Knights didn't touch the thing is a clear indicator this is a class issue, remember high HP pools and high healing rates benefit more from toughness, yet the 2 highest HP classes with good sustained healing didn't touch it and neither did any other class with good sustained healing.

 

Hint GW1 had stats on armour either directly or through insignia and upgrades for weapons, please refrain from such ill thought out comments in the future.

[ArlAlt.1630]

I think this is a great change, I think it's amazing that a shooter like Overwatch has more customization options than an MMORPG. This is the way! Quality Work.

[Starbreaker.6507]

> @"Edge.8724" said:

> > @"Stallic.2397" said:

> > Paladin amulet was unnecessary. If 100 toughness and vitality was removed could it be put somewhere else? Like precision and power??

>

> At this point, why not removing all amulets except of Berserker, Viper and Mender?

 

Time to turn PvP into PvE meta...all zerker all time time.

 

That way when they offer the next item for the PvE folks to come in here they won't even need to learn other stat combos.

[Kageseigi.2150]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> Take Nature as a real life example, of an extremely diverse system that is able to self balance itself. By extremely diverse, we are talking trillions if not near infinite things that Nature has to deal with, and yet we have a planet that can self sustain itself quite well for billions of years.

 

Or, you know, it could have been created to keep itself in balance by Someone who actually understood how to do it... unlike GW2.

[Teb.6980]

> @"Master Ketsu.4569" said:

> It's true that a lot of these are "feels bad" nerfs rather than true reworks of actual problems.

>

> But I just gotta say Unholy Sanctuary is one of the better parts of this patch. Get out of jail free passives are braindead and should all be purged.

>

>

 

Yep. I was surprised to see my "Tankus Nobrainus" lv2 necro not facetank 3+ people with no skill input on my behalf. Good job anet.

Recently I tested my trap-spam braindead burn guard to similar effect: only once out of 10 tries I could 1v3, and that was because my opponents' CDs were exhausted. Got my kitteh handed back to me by antoher burn guard who swiftly proceeded to wipe the rest of my team. I suppose he was a smarter builder when circunventing the nerfs.

 

And as for my dear beloved holo... Prime Wet Noodle Beam was replaced by mortar kit. Mortar kit does pathetic damage because certain people whined too much about it when the problem was actually prot holo; i better just rifle and elixir X lmao.

That and the fact that as damage holo every TF I'm in, I have to attack for 8 seconds for what a thief or mesmer can do in 2. That is, if I'm not ping-ponged to oblivion because what even is stabi as holo? lolol Ps; I don't play prot holo. I think it's unfair, not interactive, too overpowered. I believe it abuses stunlocks, condiflip and perma 40% protection. anet pls ressurrect alchemy uwu

[Crab Fear.1624]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"mistsim.2748" said:

> > Big brain fact - balancing is easier when there are less things to balance.

>

> Actually this isn’t a fact.

>

> Take Nature as a real life example, of an extremely diverse system that is able to self balance itself. By extremely diverse, we are talking trillions if not near infinite things that Nature has to deal with, and yet we have a planet that can self sustain itself quite well for billions of years.

>

> The exact definition of balance means that two (or more) things have to be equal. This is an inherently impossible task because two things that are different can never be equal until they are the same.

>

> This has to do with the study complexity theory, something probably to big brained for you.

>

> Given the trend of these balance patches, it’s easy to predict why they continue to face harder and harder balance issues, going now as far as removing nearly all the amulets. Instead of looking at natural balance systems that are exhibited in nature (which is balance by way of diversity) they tend towards this other form of balance which simply doesn’t work in highly complex/diverse systems like gw2.

 

Nope, when it comes to problem solving it really is a fact.

 

Take math for example, the less variables you have the easier the problem is to solved.

 

(Drops the mic, waits while type a long, and ultimately wrong rebuttal)

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Crab Fear.1624" said:

> > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > > @"mistsim.2748" said:

> > > Big brain fact - balancing is easier when there are less things to balance.

> >

> > Actually this isn’t a fact.

> >

> > Take Nature as a real life example, of an extremely diverse system that is able to self balance itself. By extremely diverse, we are talking trillions if not near infinite things that Nature has to deal with, and yet we have a planet that can self sustain itself quite well for billions of years.

> >

> > The exact definition of balance means that two (or more) things have to be equal. This is an inherently impossible task because two things that are different can never be equal until they are the same.

> >

> > This has to do with the study complexity theory, something probably to big brained for you.

> >

> > Given the trend of these balance patches, it’s easy to predict why they continue to face harder and harder balance issues, going now as far as removing nearly all the amulets. Instead of looking at natural balance systems that are exhibited in nature (which is balance by way of diversity) they tend towards this other form of balance which simply doesn’t work in highly complex/diverse systems like gw2.

>

> Nope, when it comes to problem solving it really is a fact.

>

 

It’s not. That’s literally what complexity theory is about. It’s about chaotic (nearly unsolvable behavior) that arises from very simple initial conditions or constituents. It’s a subset of chaos theory.

[lare.5129]

> @"Edge.8724" said:

> At this point, why not removing all amulets except of Berserker, Viper and Mender?

And how I understand it will be next step, til one amulet will stay. And this is not joke. Welcome to reality. And this is ok(not very very bad)