Please be careful with split balancing - it should never be the go-to method

[Velran.1052]

No. This is the best thing GW2 can do for its balance.

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

>

> That is the thing though, the lack of split balancing since early on is causing some of the very issues that caused CoH to fall. Builds,Skills, and Weapons have all effectively nerfed many PvE and PvP play-styles because they tried to keep it the same which doesn't work. The only way to bring those play-styles back is to split balance it, so both sides of the coin can eat the cake.

 

This is very true. It took me forever to get my fire controller to the point where he could summon imps. And then he was awesome! And then he was nerfed to oblivion. And then I was done for good with City of Heroes.

 

Apparently, so were a lot of players.

 

[KeoLegend.5132]

they doesnt need to be carefull

Split is a thing that should have happened long ago. Afterall PvE, PvP and WvW are three different things, why should we play it the same way? Of course there will be inbalances.

 

What could work is the devs taking 2 months of almost daily updates on the splits to balance things up. At the end of it we would have a great balance between all game modes and GW2 could even get more ppl playing it again

[CptAurellian.9537]

We need a lot more balance splits than we currently have. Without it, balance is destined to suck forever.

[Ayakaru.6583]

I'm not saying you're wrong or right,

But i can't help but notice that people have been calling for split balance for five years.

And anet seems to be slowly implementing it.

And then the anti - voice comes out

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > I keep thinking of what happened with City of Heroes. One of the things that murdered the game was Issue 6, where they restructured all of PVP so that all of the skills worked differently between game modes. This change just alienated the current PVP playerbase, while also creating a nigh insurmountable barrier of entry for PVErs who are looking to PVP. You practically had to learn the entire game mode from scratch.

> > >

> > > I suspect that this is the reason that Anet went hard on keeping skills similar between modes. IF the skills aren't similar, you create dissonance between modes, which then creates massive rifts, which then causes the game to segment and die.

> >

> > That is the thing though, the lack of split balancing since early on is causing some of the very issues that caused CoH to fall. Builds,Skills, and Weapons have all effectively nerfed many PvE and PvP play-styles because they tried to keep it the same which doesn't work. The only way to bring those play-styles back is to split balance it, so both sides of the coin can eat the cake.

>

> CoH didn't have PVE problems due to PVP balancing. PVE remained fixed while the PVP skills changed over.

>

> My whole point is that split balancing isn't a magic fix. There's a cost to it, but because that cost is long term the playerbase denies it exist. We keep saying that having dual balancing is failing the system, but what exactly is this failure? Is there some PVE content that can't be completed now due to a PVP change? Or is it all about dealing with uptight elitists that only view other players as insolent tools?

 

I read your other response to the guy. You want evidence where PvP balancing failed? Deadeye Rifle is one example. They were too afraid to buff it where it was needed for PvE for fear of making it unbalanced which made it stink for PvE. Luckily, they realized their error and split balance it for PvE to where it should be. Another example is DH LB. The LB meditrapper build used to be very decent in PvE and godly in PvP until they nerfed the crap out of it for PvP which made it useless in PvE. Another Example, scourge and reaper currently. The changes they are making for PvP are ruining it for PvE.

 

Those are just few of the costs I can think of off the top of my head, and no, it is not a human problem. If they would have balanced them properly by split balancing to begin with, the human issue wouldn't even be a factor, so please don't bring up that BS excuse when it's actually A-net problem for not proper balancing.

 

> @"Crackmonster.2790" said:

> Didn't read all answer, don't bother either.

>

> Some people got upset with my apparent elitism. This is not my problem. I simply call what is. Again let me say it for all those who activate their bias instantly and in the process forget to read and thereby miss the point: No where have i claimed split balancing cannot be good, or that it has no place. I have merely pointed out they should be careful with it.

>

> That it all.

>

> That is exactly why answer such as "no it's best", is entirely irrelevant in regards to this post. It simply doesn't address what has been said.

>

> You don't know me, so you assume too much and forget to read what i wrote in your assumptions, but i for one am actually happy to see split balancing being carried out but at the same time i realize it should be done with care. **You don't even know i am championing the cause of the people**. All people see is someone going against the flavor of the moment thinking and thereby many blanket statements are made against me to shoot down a fair point. I do not have patience for it, and therefore call it out. Sorry if that hurts you, in my mind the ideal thing to answer is always the truth instead of kissing kitten so as not to be afraid to hurt someone, because then they are given the insight to learn.

>

> The early stages is the ideal point to bring attention to split balancing before it becomes too consequential.

 

Most of us know that you never said it was bad, but dictating to people that their perception is wrong by stating "no, it's the best" is not the way to do it. They have the right to say that here just as much you have the right to say no. That was peoples problems with your removed post. Your perception isn't the only one, and it isn't always right. Also, the bolded part still sounds elitist like we are nothing and are inferior peasants in your eyes.

 

Yes, they could go overboard because even something good too much can become bad, but I would rather have that risk be taken instead of them going back to their old path where things were even more unbalanced because they were too afraid to split balance. The risk is worth it.

 

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > I keep thinking of what happened with City of Heroes. One of the things that murdered the game was Issue 6, where they restructured all of PVP so that all of the skills worked differently between game modes. This change just alienated the current PVP playerbase, while also creating a nigh insurmountable barrier of entry for PVErs who are looking to PVP. You practically had to learn the entire game mode from scratch.

> > > >

> > > > I suspect that this is the reason that Anet went hard on keeping skills similar between modes. IF the skills aren't similar, you create dissonance between modes, which then creates massive rifts, which then causes the game to segment and die.

> > >

> > > That is the thing though, the lack of split balancing since early on is causing some of the very issues that caused CoH to fall. Builds,Skills, and Weapons have all effectively nerfed many PvE and PvP play-styles because they tried to keep it the same which doesn't work. The only way to bring those play-styles back is to split balance it, so both sides of the coin can eat the cake.

> >

> > CoH didn't have PVE problems due to PVP balancing. PVE remained fixed while the PVP skills changed over.

> >

> > My whole point is that split balancing isn't a magic fix. There's a cost to it, but because that cost is long term the playerbase denies it exist. We keep saying that having dual balancing is failing the system, but what exactly is this failure? Is there some PVE content that can't be completed now due to a PVP change? Or is it all about dealing with uptight elitists that only view other players as insolent tools?

>

> I read your other response to the guy. You want evidence where PvP balancing failed? Deadeye Rifle is one example. They were too afraid to buff it where it was needed for PvE for fear of making it unbalanced which made it stink for PvE. Luckily, they realized their error and split balance it for PvE to where it should be. Another example is DH LB. The LB meditrapper build used to be very decent in PvE and godly in PvP until they nerfed the crap out of it for PvP which made it useless in PvE. Another Example, scourge and reaper currently. The changes they are making for PvP are ruining it for PvE.

>

> Those are just few of the costs I can think of off the top of my head, and no, it is not a human problem. If they would have balanced them properly by split balancing to begin with, the human issue wouldn't even be a factor, so please don't bring up that BS excuse when it's actually A-net problem for not proper balancing.

 

You could still do all content in PVE with the Deadeye. What you've listed were inconveniences. I want an example where the class ceases functioning in content, not an example where somebody doesn't want to bring a class because they feel it isn't optimal. If the issue isn't mechanically in the game, then it is a human problem.

 

That all said, you're misunderstanding my position. I recognize that split balancing has some benefits. I also recognize that it isn't a catch-all. Ultimately, we're trying to mechanically fix a human problem, and if you divide the game modes too much you'll just turn off potential players due to cross-mode dissonance.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > > I keep thinking of what happened with City of Heroes. One of the things that murdered the game was Issue 6, where they restructured all of PVP so that all of the skills worked differently between game modes. This change just alienated the current PVP playerbase, while also creating a nigh insurmountable barrier of entry for PVErs who are looking to PVP. You practically had to learn the entire game mode from scratch.

> > > > >

> > > > > I suspect that this is the reason that Anet went hard on keeping skills similar between modes. IF the skills aren't similar, you create dissonance between modes, which then creates massive rifts, which then causes the game to segment and die.

> > > >

> > > > That is the thing though, the lack of split balancing since early on is causing some of the very issues that caused CoH to fall. Builds,Skills, and Weapons have all effectively nerfed many PvE and PvP play-styles because they tried to keep it the same which doesn't work. The only way to bring those play-styles back is to split balance it, so both sides of the coin can eat the cake.

> > >

> > > CoH didn't have PVE problems due to PVP balancing. PVE remained fixed while the PVP skills changed over.

> > >

> > > My whole point is that split balancing isn't a magic fix. There's a cost to it, but because that cost is long term the playerbase denies it exist. We keep saying that having dual balancing is failing the system, but what exactly is this failure? Is there some PVE content that can't be completed now due to a PVP change? Or is it all about dealing with uptight elitists that only view other players as insolent tools?

> >

> > I read your other response to the guy. You want evidence where PvP balancing failed? Deadeye Rifle is one example. They were too afraid to buff it where it was needed for PvE for fear of making it unbalanced which made it stink for PvE. Luckily, they realized their error and split balance it for PvE to where it should be. Another example is DH LB. The LB meditrapper build used to be very decent in PvE and godly in PvP until they nerfed the crap out of it for PvP which made it useless in PvE. Another Example, scourge and reaper currently. The changes they are making for PvP are ruining it for PvE.

> >

> > Those are just few of the costs I can think of off the top of my head, and no, it is not a human problem. If they would have balanced them properly by split balancing to begin with, the human issue wouldn't even be a factor, so please don't bring up that BS excuse when it's actually A-net problem for not proper balancing.

>

> You could still do all content in PVE with the Deadeye. What you've listed were inconveniences. I want an example where the class ceases functioning in content, not an example where somebody doesn't want to bring a class because they feel it isn't optimal. If the issue isn't mechanically in the game, then it is a human problem.

>

> That all said, you're misunderstanding my position. I recognize that split balancing has some benefits. I also recognize that it isn't a catch-all. Ultimately, we're trying to mechanically fix a human problem, and if you divide the game modes too much you'll just turn off potential players due to cross-mode dissonance.

 

Inconvenience is the same as the class ceasing to function because some people like playing those builds. They want the builds to do well, so a class not being optimal is as good as dead basically. It doesn't have to be mechanically because you will never find a case like that here, and basing not doing split balance because mechanically anything can do it doesn't cut it. Split Balance is to make every build optimal. It has nothing to do with the mechanics.

 

Of course, there will always be some issues with it, but I am willing to take that risk of split balancing to make PvE and PvP builds decent again. I don't think this potential fear of turn off is a good enough reason to have non-optimal builds be not optimal still.

[Edelweiss.4261]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > > I keep thinking of what happened with City of Heroes. One of the things that murdered the game was Issue 6, where they restructured all of PVP so that all of the skills worked differently between game modes. This change just alienated the current PVP playerbase, while also creating a nigh insurmountable barrier of entry for PVErs who are looking to PVP. You practically had to learn the entire game mode from scratch.

> > > > >

> > > > > I suspect that this is the reason that Anet went hard on keeping skills similar between modes. IF the skills aren't similar, you create dissonance between modes, which then creates massive rifts, which then causes the game to segment and die.

> > > >

> > > > That is the thing though, the lack of split balancing since early on is causing some of the very issues that caused CoH to fall. Builds,Skills, and Weapons have all effectively nerfed many PvE and PvP play-styles because they tried to keep it the same which doesn't work. The only way to bring those play-styles back is to split balance it, so both sides of the coin can eat the cake.

> > >

> > > CoH didn't have PVE problems due to PVP balancing. PVE remained fixed while the PVP skills changed over.

> > >

> > > My whole point is that split balancing isn't a magic fix. There's a cost to it, but because that cost is long term the playerbase denies it exist. We keep saying that having dual balancing is failing the system, but what exactly is this failure? Is there some PVE content that can't be completed now due to a PVP change? Or is it all about dealing with uptight elitists that only view other players as insolent tools?

> >

> > I read your other response to the guy. You want evidence where PvP balancing failed? Deadeye Rifle is one example. They were too afraid to buff it where it was needed for PvE for fear of making it unbalanced which made it stink for PvE. Luckily, they realized their error and split balance it for PvE to where it should be. Another example is DH LB. The LB meditrapper build used to be very decent in PvE and godly in PvP until they nerfed the crap out of it for PvP which made it useless in PvE. Another Example, scourge and reaper currently. The changes they are making for PvP are ruining it for PvE.

> >

> > Those are just few of the costs I can think of off the top of my head, and no, it is not a human problem. If they would have balanced them properly by split balancing to begin with, the human issue wouldn't even be a factor, so please don't bring up that BS excuse when it's actually A-net problem for not proper balancing.

>

> You could still do all content in PVE with the Deadeye. What you've listed were inconveniences. I want an example where the class ceases functioning in content, not an example where somebody doesn't want to bring a class because they feel it isn't optimal. If the issue isn't mechanically in the game, then it is a human problem.

>

> That all said, you're misunderstanding my position. I recognize that split balancing has some benefits. I also recognize that it isn't a catch-all. Ultimately, we're trying to mechanically fix a human problem, and if you divide the game modes too much you'll just turn off potential players due to cross-mode dissonance.

 

I think the problem you are talking about would only occur if they change the purpose of the skill in one game mode. If they change an AOE attack into a gap-closer, I can see that messing with potential players. However, if we take confusion and change it from a+bx to 2a+bx/2, the purpose is similar, do upfront damage and punish skill usage. Typing that out, I'm realizing that decision making could change because of this. However, I don't think this is likely to completely cripple a potential player.

[Talindra.4958]

I agree totally. I have friends that are not casual players stop playing because they simply sick of all the nerf and changes here and there..

Like I mention before, if there's something need fixing. buff NPC or buff other profession instead of nerfing the skill or tone down that prof. Tone up others or otherwise when a skill is nerfed explain with very good reason why the changes is made in patch note so those that get affected will understand the need for that change.

 

Most players don't like changes. So communication is important or you will lose the trust of that player and they will just stop playing.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> Inconvenience is the same as the class ceasing to function because some people like playing those builds. They want the builds to do well, so a class not being optimal is as good as dead basically. It doesn't have to be mechanically because you will never find a case like that here, and basing not doing split balance because mechanically anything can do it doesn't cut it. Split Balance is to make every build optimal. It has nothing to do with the mechanics.

>

> Of course, there will always be some issues with it, but I am willing to take that risk of split balancing to make PvE and PvP builds decent again. I don't think this potential fear of turn off is a good enough reason to have non-optimal builds be not optimal still.

 

One of the things I'm getting at is that no, there are no mechanical examples. Every time one of those "what build should I run?" threads pops up, the first response is always the same: run whatever you want in overworld, and in your own guild. It is disingenuous to call the dual balance system a failure while simultaneously being unable to produce these failures. Likewise, making every build optimal is an ultimately fruitless endeavor, because the optimal build by definition excludes everything else. We all don't get trophies here.

[vesica tempestas.1563]

option 1 you split/ tailor builds to suit the context so it is as fair as possible.

option 2, you don't and try to balance all skills and professions for all game modes at the same time which is obviously impossible.

 

Its a no brainer, and having different style and feel of play per game type is a good thing, it offers interesting diversity.

[Ardid.7203]

I know this will be unrealistic... but IMO the problem is they are balancing things in the wrong order.

 

- They should balance things in the first place for WvW, which includes both PvP and PvE, character levels and gear. This should be a broad balance, a main strategy focus.

- They should refine and specify the changes based on standarized PvP, were levels doesn't exist and the balance need to be more precise. Instead of totally separate skill to fit the specific conquer mode when things don't work from WvW, they should ADJUST THE CONQUER MODE. (If an AoE truly needs to be wide to solve strategic problems in WvW, then the areas to hold in sPvP should also become wider).

- Only in the end they should make adjusts in PvE, making changes FIRST to enemies and encounters to fit what WvW uses, and only in the last instance, make changes to the profession skills.

 

This would lead to the game becoming more coherent, deep and centered around balanced guild vs guild combat at its core, and properly adjusted to scale and adapt challenges in other modes to match this central focus: world bosses should be equivalent to fight another guild, basic mobs should be similar to fight another player, PvP would not be a thing so alien from roaming or dueling on WvW.

 

This path of balancing, of course, would be way more harder and stressful than mere splitting things (Almost the opposite to split, even). But the result, IMO, would be vastly superior.

 

PS: I find somewhat necessary to specify that I am primarily a PvE open world player. I know and play the other modes, but I feel they are too flimsy and unstable to enjoy them on a high frequency. This doesn't stops me from honestly believe WvW should be the true heart of a game called "Guild Wars".

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > Inconvenience is the same as the class ceasing to function because some people like playing those builds. They want the builds to do well, so a class not being optimal is as good as dead basically. It doesn't have to be mechanically because you will never find a case like that here, and basing not doing split balance because mechanically anything can do it doesn't cut it. Split Balance is to make every build optimal. It has nothing to do with the mechanics.

> >

> > Of course, there will always be some issues with it, but I am willing to take that risk of split balancing to make PvE and PvP builds decent again. I don't think this potential fear of turn off is a good enough reason to have non-optimal builds be not optimal still.

>

> One of the things I'm getting at is that no, there are no mechanical examples. Every time one of those "what build should I run?" threads pops up, the first response is always the same: run whatever you want in overworld, and in your own guild. It is disingenuous to call the dual balance system a failure while simultaneously being unable to produce these failures. Likewise, making every build optimal is an ultimately fruitless endeavor, because the optimal build by definition excludes everything else. We all don't get trophies here.

 

Yes, you can run whatever you want, but it doesn't mean it is always optimal and fun which is what the split balance brings to PvE and PvP. It allows full build diversity which is what this game was lacking under the no split balance way. It is not a fruitless endeavor when every conceivable play-style is within 10%-15% of each other because that way everyone can play what they want easier instead of the huge 30%-40% gaps we have now. Yes, everyone will get a trophy if they balance everything within those margins of 10%-15%.

 

> @"Ardid.7203" said:

> I know this will be unrealistic... but IMO the problem is they are balancing things in the wrong order.

>

> - They should balance things in the first place for WvW, which includes both PvP and PvE, character levels and gear. This should be a broad balance, a main strategy focus.

> - They should refine and specify the changes based on standarized PvP, were levels doesn't exist and the balance need to be more precise. Instead of totally separate skill to fit the specific conquer mode when things don't work from WvW, they should ADJUST THE CONQUER MODE. (If an AoE truly needs to be wide to solve strategic problems in WvW, then the areas to hold in sPvP should also become wider).

> - Only in the end they should make adjusts in PvE, making changes FIRST to enemies and encounters to fit what WvW uses, and only in the last instance, make changes to the profession skills.

>

> This would lead to the game becoming more coherent, deep and centered around balanced guild vs guild combat at its core, and properly adjusted to scale and adapt challenges in other modes to match this central focus: world bosses should be equivalent to fight another guild, basic mobs should be similar to fight another player, PvP would not be a thing so alien from roaming or dueling on WvW.

>

> This path of balancing, of course, would be way more harder and stressful than mere splitting things (Almost the opposite to split, even). But the result, IMO, would be vastly superior.

>

> PS: I find somewhat necessary to specify that I am primarily a PvE open world player. I know and play the other modes, but I feel they are too flimsy and unstable to enjoy them on a high frequency. This doesn't stops me from honestly believe WvW should be the true heart of a game called "Guild Wars".

 

Disagree with that order. The majority of people play PvE in this game over PvP, so PvE should get the main focus otherwise with that order DE Rifle would still be in a gutter state like it was. WvW/sPvP following that like they are doing. Just because the game is called Guild Wars doesn't mean PvP and WvW balance has to be the first to get balanced since it is primary a PvE game first. It's not GW1 anymore.

[Jski.6180]

I think it should be THE go to method it may need to go as far as a gear split comply. Giving your pve players the ability to endlessly grind for better gear and keep your wvw players happy with the "best" gear for wvw. There are a lot of effects that have no use in pve but has high if not the most worth-full use in pvp / wvw.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"Jski.6180" said:

> I think it should be THE go to method it may need to go as far as a gear split comply. Giving your pve players the ability to endlessly grind for better gear and keep your wvw players happy with the "best" gear for wvw. There are a lot of effects that have no use in pve but has high if not the most worth-full use in pvp / wvw.

 

No grind for gear please. No gear treadmill is a good thing. They don't need to add that in.

[Jski.6180]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > @"Jski.6180" said:

> > I think it should be THE go to method it may need to go as far as a gear split comply. Giving your pve players the ability to endlessly grind for better gear and keep your wvw players happy with the "best" gear for wvw. There are a lot of effects that have no use in pve but has high if not the most worth-full use in pvp / wvw.

>

> No grind for gear please. No gear treadmill is a good thing. They don't need to add that in.

 

Hay your made your chose to play pve and that IS what pve is for just right now its about skins grinding. I will keep with wvw and its very stable gear.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"Jski.6180" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > @"Jski.6180" said:

> > > I think it should be THE go to method it may need to go as far as a gear split comply. Giving your pve players the ability to endlessly grind for better gear and keep your wvw players happy with the "best" gear for wvw. There are a lot of effects that have no use in pve but has high if not the most worth-full use in pvp / wvw.

> >

> > No grind for gear please. No gear treadmill is a good thing. They don't need to add that in.

>

> Hay your made your chose to play pve and that IS what pve is for just right now its about skins grinding. I will keep with wvw and its very stable gear.

 

Skins and better gear are totally different though. They don't need to add that in for PvE when zerker and vipers works with most sets anyways. So it is not what it is for PvE if you think it is just grinding for gear. That is a poor misconception you have.

[Jski.6180]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > @"Jski.6180" said:

> > > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > > @"Jski.6180" said:

> > > > I think it should be THE go to method it may need to go as far as a gear split comply. Giving your pve players the ability to endlessly grind for better gear and keep your wvw players happy with the "best" gear for wvw. There are a lot of effects that have no use in pve but has high if not the most worth-full use in pvp / wvw.

> > >

> > > No grind for gear please. No gear treadmill is a good thing. They don't need to add that in.

> >

> > Hay your made your chose to play pve and that IS what pve is for just right now its about skins grinding. I will keep with wvw and its very stable gear.

>

> Skins and better gear are totally different though. They don't need to add that in for PvE when zerker and vipers works with most sets anyways. So it is not what it is for PvE if you think it is just grinding for gear. That is a poor misconception you have.

 

I get what your saying its just pve mostly raids realty tend to mess things up for other game types and often fall off in use to keep ppl playing them they do need to add some type of progression even if its a Mastery system for raids only that have some use for open world pve. This slip can open up a path for this. Keeping wvw and spvp there own system for gear and Mastery with no progression and pve players happy with a type of progression. Skins alone not going to keep raids pve alive.

 

Its just the ugly truth of gamer and pve they love loot and to feel as if they are progression though playing there game. Work in pve cant be in vain and they must feel as if they are doing something that is building up. Maybe we can add in a system for cryptocurrency from doing raids giving players a feeling of worth from there video gaming so pve players do not feel like they are waiting there life. Pvp is all about fighting other humans and working out tells even tricks the joy of playing it is with in it self not for a shiny.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"Jski.6180" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > @"Jski.6180" said:

> > > > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > > > @"Jski.6180" said:

> > > > > I think it should be THE go to method it may need to go as far as a gear split comply. Giving your pve players the ability to endlessly grind for better gear and keep your wvw players happy with the "best" gear for wvw. There are a lot of effects that have no use in pve but has high if not the most worth-full use in pvp / wvw.

> > > >

> > > > No grind for gear please. No gear treadmill is a good thing. They don't need to add that in.

> > >

> > > Hay your made your chose to play pve and that IS what pve is for just right now its about skins grinding. I will keep with wvw and its very stable gear.

> >

> > Skins and better gear are totally different though. They don't need to add that in for PvE when zerker and vipers works with most sets anyways. So it is not what it is for PvE if you think it is just grinding for gear. That is a poor misconception you have.

>

> I get what your saying its just pve mostly raids realty tend to mess things up for other game types and often fall off in use to keep ppl playing them they do need to add some type of progression even if its a Mastery system for raids only that have some use for open world pve. This slip can open up a path for this. Keeping wvw and spvp there own system for gear and Mastery with no progression and pve players happy with a type of progression. Skins alone not going to keep raids pve alive.

>

> Its just the ugly truth of gamer and pve they love loot and to feel as if they are progression though playing there game. Work in pve cant be in vain and they must feel as if they are doing something that is building up. Maybe we can add in a system for cryptocurrency from doing raids giving players a feeling of worth from there video gaming so pve players do not feel like they are waiting there life. Pvp is all about fighting other humans and working out tells even tricks the joy of playing it is with in it self not for a shiny.

 

I must be different than because I have never liked gear treadmills in any MMO. I dealt with them because I had to, but I jumped ship to here when I heard of no gear treadmill. This is getting far from the discussion of split balance though, so I am just going drop it here before it gets sidetracked even more.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> I keep thinking of what happened with City of Heroes. One of the things that murdered the game was Issue 6, where they restructured all of PVP so that all of the skills worked differently between game modes. This change just alienated the current PVP playerbase, while also creating a nigh insurmountable barrier of entry for PVErs who are looking to PVP. You practically had to learn the entire game mode from scratch.

>

> I suspect that this is the reason that Anet went hard on keeping skills similar between modes. IF the skills aren't similar, you create dissonance between modes, which then creates massive rifts, which then causes the game to segment and die.

 

If you read dev statments, the mechanics of skilsl will **NEVER** be split. Only it's effects in terms of numbers. So a skill that stuns and bleeds in PvP will always stun and bleed in PvE, etc.

[Ardid.7203]

> @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > @"Ardid.7203" said:

> > I know this will be unrealistic... but IMO the problem is they are balancing things in the wrong order.

> >

> > - They should balance things in the first place for WvW, which includes both PvP and PvE, character levels and gear. This should be a broad balance, a main strategy focus.

> > - They should refine and specify the changes based on standarized PvP, were levels doesn't exist and the balance need to be more precise. Instead of totally separate skill to fit the specific conquer mode when things don't work from WvW, they should ADJUST THE CONQUER MODE. (If an AoE truly needs to be wide to solve strategic problems in WvW, then the areas to hold in sPvP should also become wider).

> > - Only in the end they should make adjusts in PvE, making changes FIRST to enemies and encounters to fit what WvW uses, and only in the last instance, make changes to the profession skills.

> >

> > This would lead to the game becoming more coherent, deep and centered around balanced guild vs guild combat at its core, and properly adjusted to scale and adapt challenges in other modes to match this central focus: world bosses should be equivalent to fight another guild, basic mobs should be similar to fight another player, PvP would not be a thing so alien from roaming or dueling on WvW.

> >

> > This path of balancing, of course, would be way more harder and stressful than mere splitting things (Almost the opposite to split, even). But the result, IMO, would be vastly superior.

> >

> > PS: I find somewhat necessary to specify that I am primarily a PvE open world player. I know and play the other modes, but I feel they are too flimsy and unstable to enjoy them on a high frequency. This doesn't stops me from honestly believe WvW should be the true heart of a game called "Guild Wars".

>

> Disagree with that order. The majority of people play PvE in this game over PvP, so PvE should get the main focus otherwise with that order DE Rifle would still be in a gutter state like it was. WvW/sPvP following that like they are doing. Just because the game is called Guild Wars doesn't mean PvP and WvW balance has to be the first to get balanced since it is primary a PvE game first. It's not GW1 anymore.

 

By modeling PvE first, you'll keep crashing into PvP needs. Then PvP will win because balance is not that important to PvE as it is for our competitive "e-sport" wannabe. This is what happens now: most things are designed and balanced in PvE, then pass into PvP balance, then get destroyed for PvE. Splitting helps solve this second iteration, but not the origin of the problem.

 

The only way PvE can be the main focus while keeping things balanced for ALL the game is to **stop thinking balance and content as separate things**: Balance the most complete/complex mode (WvW) and them make PvE content that actually USE that balance. This would be better for everyone, IMO, even for us PvE open world players.

[Galaa.8475]

Lets all be honest here. Balance would not even be needed if it was'nt because of pvp/wvw. Those two are the issue. Remove them from the game, problem solved. Or put them in there on little world where pve and pvp/wvw never meet.

[Doctor Hide.6345]

> @"Ardid.7203" said:

> > @"Doctor Hide.6345" said:

> > > @"Ardid.7203" said:

> > > I know this will be unrealistic... but IMO the problem is they are balancing things in the wrong order.

> > >

> > > - They should balance things in the first place for WvW, which includes both PvP and PvE, character levels and gear. This should be a broad balance, a main strategy focus.

> > > - They should refine and specify the changes based on standarized PvP, were levels doesn't exist and the balance need to be more precise. Instead of totally separate skill to fit the specific conquer mode when things don't work from WvW, they should ADJUST THE CONQUER MODE. (If an AoE truly needs to be wide to solve strategic problems in WvW, then the areas to hold in sPvP should also become wider).

> > > - Only in the end they should make adjusts in PvE, making changes FIRST to enemies and encounters to fit what WvW uses, and only in the last instance, make changes to the profession skills.

> > >

> > > This would lead to the game becoming more coherent, deep and centered around balanced guild vs guild combat at its core, and properly adjusted to scale and adapt challenges in other modes to match this central focus: world bosses should be equivalent to fight another guild, basic mobs should be similar to fight another player, PvP would not be a thing so alien from roaming or dueling on WvW.

> > >

> > > This path of balancing, of course, would be way more harder and stressful than mere splitting things (Almost the opposite to split, even). But the result, IMO, would be vastly superior.

> > >

> > > PS: I find somewhat necessary to specify that I am primarily a PvE open world player. I know and play the other modes, but I feel they are too flimsy and unstable to enjoy them on a high frequency. This doesn't stops me from honestly believe WvW should be the true heart of a game called "Guild Wars".

> >

> > Disagree with that order. The majority of people play PvE in this game over PvP, so PvE should get the main focus otherwise with that order DE Rifle would still be in a gutter state like it was. WvW/sPvP following that like they are doing. Just because the game is called Guild Wars doesn't mean PvP and WvW balance has to be the first to get balanced since it is primary a PvE game first. It's not GW1 anymore.

>

> By modeling PvE first, you'll keep crashing into PvP needs. Then PvP will win because balance is not that important to PvE as it is for our competitive "e-sport" wannabe. This is what happens now: most things are designed and balanced in PvE, then pass into PvP balance, then get destroyed for PvE. Splitting helps solve this second iteration, but not the origin of the problem.

>

> The only way PvE can be the main focus while keeping things balanced for ALL the game is to **stop thinking balance and content as separate things**: Balance the most complete/complex mode (WvW) and them make PvE content that actually USE that balance. This would be better for everyone, IMO, even for us PvE open world players.

 

Not true. It won't crash into PvP needs if they do proper split balancing between PvE and PvP. The issue wouldn't even arise of PvP winning. The e -sports was also dropped, so they don't care about that anymore. So I don't get how this is a first problem when it is not even a problem at all.

 

Again, I still disagree because balancing "complete/complex mode" would just make PvE build worse and piss more people off. They would also have to re-balance everything in the game for your model, so I don't see it working on that front too.

[Menadena.7482]

> @"Crackmonster.2790" said:

> Hello Anet,

>

> As title says i just wanted to point out that you should be careful with split balancing. It is not to be used lightly as it fundamentally changes the feel and flow of the class in different modes - it should instead be used only as a last resort when normal means of balancing seems inadequate or it will result in reduced quality of the game.

>

> I have just noticed you seem to be jumping aboard this train but let me just warn you - abuse and the game will suffer. It is a last resort and should always be used as such, as ultimately the noblest design goal should be consistency in class experience when playing the game.

>

> Cheers!

 

Thumbs WAY down!

 

The different modes have very different needs. Not only is balancing harder but I doubt any mode wants something nerfed for something that is not an issue for them.