[Suggestion] Increase balance patch frequency

[Panda.1967]

> @maddoctor.2738 said:

> This is gonna get worse with more expansions as they add more and more skills to the game, after Path of Fire, Guild Wars 2 now has more skills to click on than Guild Wars 1 (excluding EotN) and with expansion 3 Guild Wars 2 will surpass Guild Wars 1 in the number of skills including all the expansions/campaigns.

 

Um... you may want to check your numbers on that again... we're not even close to one quarter of the skills available in GW1 yet... Not even close to half of the skills from just Prophecies even...

 

 

[maddoctor.2738]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> > @maddoctor.2738 said:

> > This is gonna get worse with more expansions as they add more and more skills to the game, after Path of Fire, Guild Wars 2 now has more skills to click on than Guild Wars 1 (excluding EotN) and with expansion 3 Guild Wars 2 will surpass Guild Wars 1 in the number of skills including all the expansions/campaigns.

>

> Um... you may want to check your numbers on that again... we're not even close to one quarter of the skills available in GW1 yet... Not even close to half of the skills from just Prophecies even...

>

>

 

I don't know what numbers you use but Guild Wars 2 LAUNCHED with more skills than Prophecies. Skills to click on btw, chains consist of 3 separate skills for example, instead of taking 3 slots of your skill bar.

Not talking about healing, utility and elite skills, talking about all of them. Banners, conjured weapons, kits, toolbelt, ranger pets, F skills, tomes, transforms, and so on.

I'm not even counting traits, which give you a lot extra powers unlike in GW1, if I counted those too then Guild Wars 2 already surpassed Guild Wars 1 in skills even if you include every single campaign/expansion.

 

Moving on

[Daffan.8924]

Not splitting pvp and pve balance is really weird. WoW worked that out after 10 yrs and even GW1 had it.

 

 

[Panda.1967]

> @Daffan.8924 said:

> Not splitting pvp and pve balance is really weird. WoW worked that out after 10 yrs and even GW1 had it.

>

 

They do split PvP and PvE balance... in the stupidest way...

 

Buffs go to PvP only for a season or 2 before being brought to PvE.

Nerfs go to both at the same time... with a sledgehammer...

[Walhalla.5473]

There is either the sledgehammer on nerfs or insignificant buffs. I can understand very small buffs if the balance update cadence would be like every 2 weeks. Heck even once a month would be so much better than what we have now.

 

The problem with the cadence we have now is, that if something in the balance patch goes wrong ( killing a skill, nerfing the class itself too hard etc.) than we'll have to wait at least 4 months for another balance patch to solve that problem which is frustrating for affected classes and not fun. Its too slow and PvE balance also becomes stale because we have to wait for a long time and sometimes the balance patch is affecting skills that aren't used in PvE at all, which results in " nothing changed".

 

Please Anet. Build a PvE Balance Team that is only working on PvE balance and can do those patches at least once every month and can react fast to overnerfs etc.

 

Good balance helps sell the game and you are just making it harder for yourself by this slow cadence.

[Majic.4801]

> @Walhalla.5473 said:

> Good balance helps sell the game and you are just making it harder for yourself by this slow cadence.

 

I think that's at the heart of the problem, in that changes made less frequently tend to be bigger changes that have a more dramatic impact and greater chance of causing bigger problems themselves.

 

It works against ArenaNet's (enlightened, in my opinion) iterative philosophy by reducing the number of iterations and leaving balance problems, along with the grief they bring, unresolved for longer periods.

 

Approaching balance issues more like the bugs they really are and fixing them more quickly would solve a very large number of problems in itself.

 

I hope ArenaNet realizes that sooner rather than later.

[Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921]

The issue with balance patches even in the best of circumstances is that they never achieve balance.

 

Take LOL having known hardcore players of the game they run into balance troubles all the time. Power creep of new characters throws the balance a bit out of whack and it isn't until they reign that in the toon becomes better balanced, but notice I said new characters (which is where they get their money) and these are added pretty frequently, so no you don't end up with balance more so you're chasing the next OP addition.

 

WOW has their own problems during leveling the classes don't match well, so a theif in the golden levels is an unstoppable killing machine, or the new gear of the next expansion is so much better than most top gear of the previous that a basic green is better than some of the best gear players have struggled to earn.

 

Guild Wars has one problem they could really reign in to fix balance issues, separate PVE from PVP, and even possibly WVW if needed. It's ok if skill act differently in the systems to maintain balance. Too much streamlining and the professions will feel watered down.

[Aeolus.3615]

it is a pve only game, pvp was a propaganda... no balance needed for pve.

 

neilug hyuga.5634, ANet dont want that kind of diversity, if u notice ELITE specs are the diversity, but based on pve design, and to make the next desirable they almost obsolete the before,

 

They are using a bit of vertical elite trait design since the game has no armor progression, but what they are doing result in alot of broken specs but that is also a good thing in ANet eyes cause its a pve game.. if player be carried they they will stay and play, its th eonly thing game can offer (damage).

 

IMO the ideals that ANet is building the game are shamefull.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @musu.9205 said:

> > @Ayrilana.1396 said:

> > It may hurt the WvW and PvP game modes but it'll have little impact on PvE where the majority of the player base reside. Yes, there's raids but what percentage of the player base actually do them on a consistent enough basis for it to matter?

>

> you basically said : we are kitten we dont care other players even they paid as much as we did but let them suffer for no good reasons lol.

>

> how we are going to introduce class to new players ?

> you will be fine as long as you dont touch pvp , raid , fractal , wvw , a large portion of game .

> and you will still suffer as mesmer in open world . as ranger 90% of your pet will still barely hit target .

> or you will be fine with necro , yeah its meme class for pve , but you will be fine .

> come on .

> how that's possible good things to hear for new players ?

>

> by your logic , anet should delete content in order to gain more players ?

>

>

 

Hyperbole much?

 

You cannot balance every single class to be 100% on par with each other in every aspect of the game. I say 100% simply because players always assume that they need to play the utmost optimal builds/classes. The game has been "unbalanced" for five years and yet it's still doing fairly well for a subscription-free game of its age.

[Panda.1967]

> @"Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921" said:

> The issue with balance patches even in the best of circumstances is that they never achieve balance.

>

> Take LOL having known hardcore players of the game they run into balance troubles all the time. Power creep of new characters throws the balance a bit out of whack and it isn't until they reign that in the toon becomes better balanced, but notice I said new characters (which is where they get their money) and these are added pretty frequently, so no you don't end up with balance more so you're chasing the next OP addition.

 

The devs of LoL intentionally release new characters in an overpowered state. They do this to drum up sales of the new character at release, and then nerf them after a period to restore a semblance of balance for a while before they release the next new character. It's 100% intentional design for them.

 

> WOW has their own problems during leveling the classes don't match well, so a theif in the golden levels is an unstoppable killing machine, or the new gear of the next expansion is so much better than most top gear of the previous that a basic green is better than some of the best gear players have struggled to earn.

 

For WoW, this is more of an issue with Blizzard's new dev team being obsessed with streamlining and pruning the classes. They have removed almost three quarter of the skills from the game in order to "make the game more new player friendly". The result is that many skills that served the same general function but were acquired at different level ranges have been reduced down to just one skill, this causes some classes to be ill equipped for certain types of encounters at lower levels while other classes are better equipped for it. Similarly it creates a massive imbalance in PvP between classes during the leveling process, such as unstoppable Rogues. Their balance is focused primarily on endgame, giving little thought to the leveling experience with each new expansion since Cata.

 

> Guild Wars has one problem they could really reign in to fix balance issues, separate PVE from PVP, and even possibly WVW if needed. It's ok if skill act differently in the systems to maintain balance. Too much streamlining and the professions will feel watered down.

 

Their balance team really needs to take some time, sit down, and communicate with the player base at this point. The balance updates we get, I guarantee DO NOT take 3-4 months to make. The changes we've gotten can be done in a week or 2 easily, even by a small team. People like to claim there are only 3 devs on the balance team here, guess what, people make the same exact claim over on WoW's forums too, yet their "3 dev balance team" can churn out balance passes every 1-2 weeks like it's nothing.

 

Yes, there are a lot of considerations to make regarding possible build combinations for each change. However, it's actually better to let the community help with testing and put out more frequent balance updates, than to try and do all the work in house. This is probably where all the time is going, they are spending too much time on in-house testing of every tiny little change. They could instead put together a plan for a balance change, do some quick inhouse testing to make sure it's not broken, then let the community test it for issues. This results in multiple things.

 

1. The devs put out more frequent balance updates

2. The community actually has a voice in changes, and concerns about certain changes have a realistic chance of being addressed

3. Problems with a balance update get addressed quickly instead of being left to sit for 3-4 months or forgotten about altogether

4. Quality of balance updates will improves on average

[Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921]

 

Panda.1967

 

If it has to do with small staffing, there is one solution on the table that comes to mind. Beta testing patches would be a great opportunity to increase the testing pool and get a better handle on balance. This would work for most games, since having a large pool of players playtesting the game would go far to minimizing over and under balance.

[Obtena.7952]

> @Majic.4801 said:

> > @Walhalla.5473 said:

> > Good balance helps sell the game and you are just making it harder for yourself by this slow cadence.

>

> I think that's at the heart of the problem, in that changes made less frequently tend to be bigger changes that have a more dramatic impact and greater chance of causing bigger problems themselves.

>

> It works against ArenaNet's (enlightened, in my opinion) iterative philosophy by reducing the number of iterations and leaving balance problems, along with the grief they bring, unresolved for longer periods.

>

> Approaching balance issues more like the bugs they really are and fixing them more quickly would solve a very large number of problems in itself.

>

> I hope ArenaNet realizes that sooner rather than later.

 

I have YET to see a game that markets itself on 'good balance'. That statement makes no sense; it's wishful thinking. Even the games that DO have reasonable balance do not use this as their marketing to entice players.

 

I believe that Anet's philosophy is just a consequence of what they are willing to put towards balancing. You can only DO big, less frequent patches with a smaller team; each patch cycle has a fixed amount of work that they can't avoid.

[primatos.5413]

hm .. maybe they should have been paying a wvw balance team instead of giving away purses to the "esport pros" :bleep_bloop:

[Yamazuki.6073]

> @"Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921" said:

>

> Panda.1967

>

> If it has to do with small staffing, there is one solution on the table that comes to mind. Beta testing patches would be a great opportunity to increase the testing pool and get a better handle on balance. This would work for most games, since having a large pool of players playtesting the game would go far to minimizing over and under balance.

 

Even with a small staff, data doesn't have to be manually collected by the developers themselves, in fact it's pretty normal for dedicated community members to collect the data and provide feedback for the developers, leaving the developers to focus on applying the changes rather than doing it all on their own. This applies even to larger competitive games like LoL, they get feed back from a mixture of low tier players and volunteer high ranked/pro players on balancing champions. The only real thing Riot does is designing the champions and their skill sets, the numbers and sometimes additional effects are ideas from various members of the community.

 

There's little excuse for PvE balance patches to be rare. It's understandable for pvp to see less balance changes, because identifying an issue in pvp isn't as simple, something new could be performing really well, but that could be failure to adapt for example, and likewise something could be performing poorly but it could be a skill issue and it may be too good when played well. In Pve though, you could easily get data from the community that is rather solid and not extremely opinionated. When a build, weapons, or skill is completely avoided it's generally because it's far too worthless. Same for when a profession is using the same exact traits, weapons, etc almost everywhere that's an indication of a problem.

[Obtena.7952]

> @Yamazuki.6073 said:

> There's little excuse for PvE balance patches to be rare. It's understandable for pvp to see less balance changes, because identifying an issue in pvp isn't as simple, something new could be performing really well, but that could be failure to adapt for example, and likewise something could be performing poorly but it could be a skill issue and it may be too good when played well. In Pve though, you could easily get data from the community that is rather solid and not extremely opinionated. When a build, weapons, or skill is completely avoided it's generally because it's far too worthless. Same for when a profession is using the same exact traits, weapons, etc almost everywhere that's an indication of a problem.

 

Spoken just like someone who assumes far too much. There is LOTS of reasons (and good ones) for balance patches to be 'rare', including the reason that you or I or anyone doesn't really know what the process is to make those changes.

[Jukens.1693]

Anet dropped the bomb on necros with Halloween update, they said they would "look into" potential buffs for the balance update and when is that going to be? January is wishful thinking. They nuke the classes and players suffer for extended periods of time. I would take a very small even a single skill update every 2-3 weeks, instead of nuke updates. That would make me happy as i would have something to look forward to every couple of weeks.

 

Necro is a having a hard time getting balance without a true PvE- PvP split. The small balance split Anet is doing sadly isn't enough because, when the necro is strong in PvE, they break the PvP mode. When the necro is okay in PvP they get weak in PvE.

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @ThenCameThree.4163 said:

>

> So now back to GW2, whats wrong with playing something **ineffective** if your not competing for ranked sPvP, Number One WVW server, or some raid timing. Outside of that balance shouldn't be a concern to people until they cant complete content. If you think the that 9 classes, with 3 different specs counting core, 7 traits for each class, and no appropriate roles is going to be balanced for competing its definitely not going to happen.

 

I suspect that:

 

1) Complaints about balance from an instanced PvE perspective are coming from people who want to PuG, and who want to do so with their favorite character. Since a lot of groups only want certain professions for certain roles, they're hoping that ANet will make "their" profession desired by random strangers on the internet.

2) Complaints about balance from a WvW perspective are coming from people who realize that if the herd they're with is not sporting the best comp, they're going to get rolled. Thing is, they're right a lot of the time. Also, from a havoc or roamer's perspective, the players are hoping that ANet will do something about builds that have way too much damage for their survivability.

[Panda.1967]

> @"Egrimm Van Horstmann.7921" said:

>

> Panda.1967

>

> If it has to do with small staffing, there is one solution on the table that comes to mind. Beta testing patches would be a great opportunity to increase the testing pool and get a better handle on balance. This would work for most games, since having a large pool of players playtesting the game would go far to minimizing over and under balance.

 

That's actually exactly what I was suggesting. But since ArenaNet stated once before that they don't intend on having a dedicated Test Server, the next best option is for them to just let the testing be done on live. Though, honestly a test server is absolutely the best solution to allow for better and more frequent balance patches. Even if they don't want to do live patches very often, having upcomming changes on a test server with community feedback would go a long ways to improving things. Classes that got overnerfed in a previous live patch would be able to know what sort of improvements they will be getting in the next patch instead of languishing in misery for months on end with broken abilities.

[babazhook.6805]

While I think more frequent balance patches might be desirable, I do not think the examples of other games doing the same really means a lot. I am familiar with some of those balance cycles in other games and many of them are just fixing a problem in balance that a recent balance patch introduced. Added to that people do have the tendency to complain about a change because their old build no longer as effective against this even as they claim it a "balance issue" rather then an unwillingness to adapt.

 

In order to accurately assess the impact of various changes and new skills in a game , time is needed to see how a community reacts and develops builds as in response. This is not something that can always be done in 2 weeks. It always more important to address bugs that lead to balance issues then it is a given skill that might be overtuned.

 

4 a year might be too few , but 20 a year is something I do not thing of as desirable it all. The fact is , at the end of the day, a PERFECTLY balanced game would need next to no balance patches and if a company is doing this every two weeks there more then a little wrong with balance in that game. A balance patch being issued every 2 to 3 weeks is not a sign of a well balanced game. It the opposite.

 

 

[Blaeys.3102]

> @TexZero.7910 said:

> > @Ojimaru.8970 said:

> > As to your assertion that long delays between balance patches are bad for the game, what evidence do you have that it has affected Guild Wars 2? The patch cycle has largely been the same for the last five years, and yet boasts having over 11 million players worldwide (["The Path to the Desert, in Numbers," 2017](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/the-path-to-the-desert-in-numbers/)), and grossing nearly $12 million in sales in Q2 of 2017 (prior to PoF launch) ([NCSoft, 2017](http://global.ncsoft.com/global/ir/earnings.aspx)). Are these signs of a #dedgame?

>

> This just isnt true. The patch cycle has not been largely the same for the past five years. In fact for the first two we'd have patches every two weeks and have smaller balance patches alongside them. Now as of the last 3 years we've moved to a once a quarter balance change system which is largely leading to gameplay stagnation across all modes. To put this into numbers the first 2 years roughly contained 52 balance patches, while the past 3 years have contained 12.

>

> The reason Anet thinks this is acceptable is because they've started gating the idea of balance behind PvP seasons and largely adjusting around those windows instead of doing the per-mode balance when and where its required.

 

100% this.

 

Separating balance between PVE and PVP is imperative if they ever want to identify weak points in their design and fix them.

 

I would add that extending the boon cap - at least in instances - to 10 players is also important. As it stands, some boons (alacrity, quickness, might) are just too powerful, meaning groups of more than 5 players require redundant professions to maximize potential - design that runs counter to diverse gameplay.

 

[Orpheal.8263]

They should have focused the game first for say the first 2-3 years completely on PvE content only, and should have added by now PvP or WvW as next big game mode as a new feature.

 

That would have helped alot the game, but Anet wanted to have everything from begin on, instead of focusing on first 1 game mode, making sure, its great and receives great content, before they get onto another different game mode, like PvP.

Its in the end anyways always PvE, which drives in the huge amounts of cash for the game, not PvP, not WvW.

Why do we have stuff, like gliders, mounts, outfits, minipets ect. .. so that people can show around this visual fluff mainly in PVE, where you are seen and where people care for stuff like that.. but not at all in WvW or PVP, where stuff if this mostly is out of performance reasons disabled, or simply not allowed or has just no place there by game design..cause who the hel needs glider skins in PvP, if theres no PvP map where gliding plays a role at all... same goes with mounts now... who cares for mounts, when its by design just PvE content (currently) in PvP or WvW??

 

I'm pretty sure, that the Game Balance of GW2 would be now in many things much better, if Anet would have released the Core Game only with PvE Content in mind for say the first 3 years and woudl have implemented for example WvW as a new Game Mode either with an Expansion or with a Feature Pack later.

 

Same goes for PvP, especialyl using the moment of chance then to implement these new Game Modes directly also from begin on with completely OWN mode specific Skills for all classes, so that there would have been never at all from begin on the problem of class/skill balancing between all the game modes, if from begin on all modes would have been seperately implemented over time with their own unique skill sets for all classes to make all three game modes truly unique and differently to play.

 

Then could have been filled PvE content for example instead for the Core game from begin on with gameplay features, like Player Housing, a better Crafting System, more Emotes and so on, instead of wastign the ressources on too many Game Modes from begin on.

But I guess, that stood never on the table of discussion for anet to even think on this possibility of just focusing themself first on the cash cow element number 1 of the game first completely for some time with the release of the main game, because all they had in mind was to try to turn the game from begin on into some kind of Esports game with their 4 year long crusade they followed to try to make that dream come true - and yet we all see and know by now, where this has brought us now - it miserably failed, to the point, that GW2 has been removed from the ESL, due to its miserable game balance state and its boring form of PvP that never got within the last 4 years ever a chance to truly evolve itself into something great, due to the game balance being shared among all game modes and Anet not willing to make a clear cut between all three modes.

 

The fact is, we have now a game, that is still using outdated gameplay mechanics from 2012 and Anet keeps on adding new elements to the game, like new Conditions (Torment, Taunt), new Upgrades (Runes from E-Specs) and new E-Specs itself which add new Traits and Skills, without ever having looked really seriously bakc, that they actualyl need to keep 90% of the games combat system also up to date as well, instead of adding permanently only new things to the combat, and epecting from the game, that everythign balanceas itself from alone, by just making changes only onto Skills and Traits and keep on adding new E-Specs every few years from HoT on now ..

 

Thats not how game balancing functionizes.

Especially not, when its done only like every 3+ months or so with the tiny amount of changes, that Anet dares on doing at all, cause they seem to be too scared to make some serious fundamental changes to the game balance, that this game needs to receive, to finalyl get out of its being outdated 2012-hole of ignorance into which ANet has thrown their own game for 5 years now.

Like I#äve written it in the other last balance thread that has been made few days ago..

Balance Patches for GW2 must be done at least every 2 Months!!

Every 6 to 12 Months must be make a big more fundemental Balance Patch, which makes sure, that also the bigger gameplay elements of the combat system stay in touch with all the changes that have meen made meanwhile onto SKills, Traits and Combat Effects like Boons and Conditions, so that they can keep on riunning smooth and in harmony with each other further.

 

The game feels so unlanced, because all classes deal in regard ouf our current health System way too much damage, than for what the current 2012er Health System was designed ans balanced around for.

With a ridiculous low Base Health Value of only 11k HP its no miracle, that certain builds in this game aren't played at all in specific situations in PvP or WvW, when just a snails sneeze can instant kill you that wasn't even a critical hit nowadays. If just the Health Values would get increased individually for all Classes, so that fights would last again longer and couldn#t get ended anymore in like 2-3 seconds cause of way too overpowered bursts from Condis or High Critical Power Builds with the help of Buff Food or synergies from other allied players, then would make combat in GW2 also again more fun, then we'd see also again more people roaming in WvW again, because nobody wants to be there instant killed, without having had at all a chance to fight back...same goes for PvP!! For PvE nobody cares,s there we know, that we fight only brainless multi million health sponges for half eternities, but alos these kminds of battles in PbvE could be easiyl designed to make more fun, to be more challengign and so on, if just the combat system would get finally completely overworked, so that theres no need anymore for such health sponges just to create arteficial challenges in regard of the question, if you can just survive long enough, iuntil you brought the HP to 0, before you die of boredom cause of the unneccessary long battles that, which take only so long, so that enough people have the chance to participate on the battles to deal enough damage so that they gain rewards later

 

GW2 needs no Gear Stats, Gear Stats in fact are bad for Game Balance, just see what Dire & Trailblazer did to the Game.. problems that wouldn't exist, of the Game wouldn't need to have Gear Stats for Character Progression, but instead would allow every player to distribute 100% freely their Stats as you like, juts like we did do that in GW1. Gear Stats were a HUGE STEP BACK, a total gameplay degeneration for Character Progression for this Game compared to how simple, but yet intuitive the GW1 Chasracter Progression was in regard of Attributes, despite of the game not using the classical Parameter Attributes of Power, Vitality ect. but instead used Trait Lines as like Attributes, stuff like Fire Magic, Valor, Strength and so on.

Gear Stats are an outdated plague of ancient old game design systems for RPGs that are totally overrated, and absolutely unneccessary, if the Character can just progress automatically over the course of time and the player just freely distributes Attribute Points to vsarious parameters, as you like, with the option to reset your setup, whenever you want outside of combat, if you think, you made a mistake, or if you just want to change something on your current build.

 

Could continue, but I just would repeat myself only on what ive written in the other thread already. Anet must come out of their self made stagnancy

If they don't finally dare to make some more fundamental changes to the combat system of their game to actualize it and keep it up to date to all their skill/trait changes and added new content in form of more E-Specs, then this game will just get out of control completely sooner or later beyond the point of repairability.

You can't just keep on ignoring 90% of your games combat system literaly forever and cherry picking on changign only skilsl and traits.

Thats a mentality that will revenge itself and it already has partwise revenged itself in regard of Anets fail at making this game at all a successful E-Sports game the very moment the game got ditched out of the ESL.

[Rauderi.8706]

> @Orpheal.8263 said:

> They should have focused the game first for say the first 2-3 years completely on PvE content only, and should have added by now PvP or WvW as next big game mode as a new feature.

 

That would have been a death sentence two ways.

 

1) Some people won't buy a game *at all* if there's no PvP. "Killer" personalities need that to feel like the game has any value, and they make up a rather sizable market share.

 

2) Late introduction of PvP guarantees that it's not designed for at launch. Which is bad. That's why WoW PvP is the mess that it is, and that might very well be why GW2's PvP is as tilted as it is. PvP should have been strongly integrated during initial development and enemy AI built more with emulating some PvP in mind.

[ThomasC.1056]

> @"neilug hyuga.5634" said:

> I know balance is **hard** (I am working in the game industry too, so I understand).

>

> My post is not to complain, but to show that it can hurts the game, by making players leaving the game for diverses reasons.

>

> In **MMORPG**, there is **RPG**. A good RPG should give **diversity**, by its own system of building the character. And this is what is mainly fun in a RPG.

>

> How many skills and traits in GW2 are now useless and ineffective?

>

> Of course it's **hard** to make everything works perfectly, but it should definitively the **long term goal of a balance team** (even if it is not possible)!

>

> In a game you love, you want to give as much possibilities you want to your player base. And you would care of their feedback.

>

> If you think they are wrong, then you argue with the balance team, with one or more messages. Or course there will always be haters but, don't listen to them.

>

> > "then don't be a meta slave and go play what you want"

>

> It is **not fun** to play something that you know is **ineffective**. I am not an hardcore gamer, but I am not stupid, and I still think.

>

> I think also overall only 4 balance patch per year is not good enough for GW2. There should have more. I really like the patching of League of Legends for example that get new patch every ~2/3weeks.

>

> Balance fixes problems that are within the game. Balance brings new gameplay by rework. Balance tries to make everything in a same equality, fixing Over Powered stuff.

>

>

> **TLDR & conclusion :**

>

> By ignoring an effective balance, you will bring **lassitude**, **anger**, **no-fun** to a part of the players (of course, not everyone will be affected).

>

> Having a good balance every 2 patchs for example might bring more than you can think players into the game.

 

I mostly agree on what you said, but I think you're not going far enough because you're mistaking _balance_ with _build diversity_.

 

The _balance_ topic is essentially a matter of numbers. Damage output, mitigation, healing power, boon uptime, etc. As it's a matter of figures, it can be easily tweaked by weaking uptimes, costs, values etc. Easily means here, "not too hard to code", I'm not saying it's easy to achieve a balanced state. Now, ANet is clearly doing it wrong for a simple reason : balance states comes from a significant number of iterations, because you'll do once too much, then you go back, etc etc. And the more number you have to tweak, the more you need to iterate. It means that you need to do "number tweaks" on a fast paced basis, in order to get close to the balanced state as fast as possible. Now, what does "fast" mean ? It has to be considered relatively to the time the playerbase absorbs the change. Given it's only a change in number, it can be absorbed quickly, so my point of view of this is : every 2-4 weeks for small number changes may be reasonable.

 

The _build diversity_ topic is far trickier. Roughly, for a game like GW2, builds can be dispatched in 3 sets :

* **What I like** : self-explanatory. To each his own, and some will like to play support, damage, condi, a class in favor on another, etc. That one is no real issue, because it's quite safe to assume there're enough players in GW2 to have diversity on that point.

* **What works** : It becomes a bit trickier. It's fairly simple to design a, say, pure condi mesmer, and it seems like a reasonable choice not to pic zerker stats for it. So, the "what works" has a kind of rational thing in it. Now, there're also things that work better than others stat-wise, and skill/trait-wise.

* **What is demanded** : by whom ? By the game in itself, and by other players.

 

Some builds may qualify for several of these sets, and the key to "lassitude, anger and no-fun" lies here. [i made a little diagram to illustrate](https://imgur.com/a/RkU3E). You'll notice how the answer "just play what you want" is out of place when you think thnigs thoroughly.

 

Unfortuntaly, ANet fails deeply on two of these sets : _what works_ and _what is demanded_.

* On the **What works** set, the issue is lots of skills and traits are outdated, subperforming, and broadly put aside by lots of players. It's a real issue when specific roles _could_ be taken by a profession, _and yet are not_ because those are just no use compared to some other combinaisons in another spec. It impairs the build diversity a lot.

* On the **What is demanded** set now. Just two examples :

1. Some website stated that "full viper + 4 nightmare runes + 2 trapper runes" is a _requirement_ for condi builds. I'm not asking whether it's true or not, of whatever of that kind. I'm just wanting to point that it's a really strict limitation amongst all the possibilities. It's such a strict limitation that immediatly after PoF's release, any condi build (mirage, scourge, firebrand...) was designed _on that specific gear_ !

2. On the open-PvE side of the game, you almost only need damage output. Condi or power doesn't matter that much. Healing/Supportive specs aren't that useful.

 

So, the core idea is : the game doesn't provide enough options :

1. For role diversity, in the game itself (scenarios)

2. For a single role, in the effectiveness of varied specs

3. For a single role, in the possibilities given by gear.

 

To solve this, it's urging to revamp lots of traits and skills. Quarterly skills update should be huge revamps of that kind. Even if it "shifts the meta" or whatever ! It's not bad in itself, learning and adapting _can be_ fun. There're so many skills that are dusting on shelves, and sinking to oblivion that it's a shame. Redoing skills is not "increased heal of skill by 18,33%". It's changing the whole functionnality, adding side-effects, and making skills and traits worth considering as a viable choice in a given context. And eventually allowing every player to find a suitable build that fits his playstyle, and provides him with fulfillement and joy.

 

I know it takes time and a whole dedicated time of experienced and proficient game designers, so I really have few hopes that any turn will be taken in that direction. But I'm a hopeless dreamer.