Poelala.2830 Posted June 18, 2018 Author Share Posted June 18, 2018 > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > @"Poelala.2830" said: > > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > > > > @"Poelala.2830" said: > > > > > A ‘both’ option was ignored with intention and not by accident. A combination of buffs and nerfs is balance by definition. Why would I ask “Do you want everything balanced?” Of course you do. The core of the question was how do you think balance would be achieved in pvp’s current state? Generally by seeing a bunch of nerfs or by generally seeing a bunch of buffs? Most people agreed with me in thinking that classes need nerfs at the moment, not buffs. And through these nerfs would we find balance. > > > > > > > > According to the poll, the **VAST** majority of people agree with you. People saying it needs to be both are being too literal, I understand that you meant that the balanced team needs to change their perspective on balancing to be more focused on nerfing. > > > > > > FWIW, I think it is entirely possible to hold the "both" opinion, and that the way @"Poelala.2830" puts it isn't actually the right way to think about this, without being over-literal in reading the question. (Though, of course, it is their post, and I accept that they are empowered to judge my comments any way they want.) > > > > > > I think that, right now, most classes sit in a reasonable position in GW2. If you drew a graph of their DPS over time, *most* would be clustered fairly closely in the center, with a few distinct outliers above and below that single line, across the population. > > > > > > When I say both are needed, I mean that center line is actually, IMO, a reasonable position: not too strong, and not too weak, but rather, pretty good. So, bringing those outliers closer to the center is the best way to deliver overall a good result. If you just focus on bringing everything down to the lowest line, or raising them up to the highest line, you end up with a game where damage etc are either too low (and slow, and feel bad) or too high (and fast, and feel bad, because really it isn't much fun after the first time you one-shot everyone else.) > > > > > > I completely agree that most of what needs to happen is probably power reductions on a few specs. The number that are low seem, subjectively, to be smaller than the number that are high right now. I just don't think a good result is either "everyone is now at the level of the lowest", or "everyone is at the center, except the ones at the lowest". > > > > It was an either or question. Which is better, buffing or nerfing? You don’t respond with caramel when I ask if you like vanilla or chocolate more. > > OK, I'm sorry. Here is a response that matches the question asked: Your question is impossible to answer, because the real world is more complicated than that, and I can't reduce it to a simple "A or B" when the real answer is neither of them. > > I added the rest -- the "caramel" recommendation -- because I felt that simply saying "your question is incomplete and so unanswerable" and not adding anything more is unhelpful. > > I appreciate you can ask any question you like, in any framing you like, with any arbitrary restrictions you like, but ... I don't believe you get to have, how to put it... consequence-free speech here. Your post is public, and open to public comment, which means that you are subject to people who don't believe it is answerable telling you so. But you did answer it, and your answer was nerfing. Your same logic in that answer is the same logic everyone else who answered that way thought about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlippyCheeze.5483 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 > @"Poelala.2830" said: > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > @"Poelala.2830" said: > > > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > > > > > @"Poelala.2830" said: > > > > > > A ‘both’ option was ignored with intention and not by accident. A combination of buffs and nerfs is balance by definition. Why would I ask “Do you want everything balanced?” Of course you do. The core of the question was how do you think balance would be achieved in pvp’s current state? Generally by seeing a bunch of nerfs or by generally seeing a bunch of buffs? Most people agreed with me in thinking that classes need nerfs at the moment, not buffs. And through these nerfs would we find balance. > > > > > > > > > > According to the poll, the **VAST** majority of people agree with you. People saying it needs to be both are being too literal, I understand that you meant that the balanced team needs to change their perspective on balancing to be more focused on nerfing. > > > > > > > > FWIW, I think it is entirely possible to hold the "both" opinion, and that the way @"Poelala.2830" puts it isn't actually the right way to think about this, without being over-literal in reading the question. (Though, of course, it is their post, and I accept that they are empowered to judge my comments any way they want.) > > > > > > > > I think that, right now, most classes sit in a reasonable position in GW2. If you drew a graph of their DPS over time, *most* would be clustered fairly closely in the center, with a few distinct outliers above and below that single line, across the population. > > > > > > > > When I say both are needed, I mean that center line is actually, IMO, a reasonable position: not too strong, and not too weak, but rather, pretty good. So, bringing those outliers closer to the center is the best way to deliver overall a good result. If you just focus on bringing everything down to the lowest line, or raising them up to the highest line, you end up with a game where damage etc are either too low (and slow, and feel bad) or too high (and fast, and feel bad, because really it isn't much fun after the first time you one-shot everyone else.) > > > > > > > > I completely agree that most of what needs to happen is probably power reductions on a few specs. The number that are low seem, subjectively, to be smaller than the number that are high right now. I just don't think a good result is either "everyone is now at the level of the lowest", or "everyone is at the center, except the ones at the lowest". > > > > > > It was an either or question. Which is better, buffing or nerfing? You don’t respond with caramel when I ask if you like vanilla or chocolate more. > > > > OK, I'm sorry. Here is a response that matches the question asked: Your question is impossible to answer, because the real world is more complicated than that, and I can't reduce it to a simple "A or B" when the real answer is neither of them. > > > > I added the rest -- the "caramel" recommendation -- because I felt that simply saying "your question is incomplete and so unanswerable" and not adding anything more is unhelpful. > > > > I appreciate you can ask any question you like, in any framing you like, with any arbitrary restrictions you like, but ... I don't believe you get to have, how to put it... consequence-free speech here. Your post is public, and open to public comment, which means that you are subject to people who don't believe it is answerable telling you so. > > But you did answer it, and your answer was nerfing. Your same logic in that answer is the same logic everyone else who answered that way thought about it. Huh. I definitely don't see it that way, but I do appreciate your explanation. I certainly agree that "bring everyone up to the current top end" is not the right answer, with those posters. Anyway, it is very useful to me to have this feedback on how my discussion was heard, which can be very hard to know in a forum like this. Thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huskyboy.1053 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > @"Poelala.2830" said: > > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > > @"Poelala.2830" said: > > > > > @"SlippyCheeze.5483" said: > > > > > > @"Huskyboy.1053" said: > > > > > > > @"Poelala.2830" said: > > > > > > > A ‘both’ option was ignored with intention and not by accident. A combination of buffs and nerfs is balance by definition. Why would I ask “Do you want everything balanced?” Of course you do. The core of the question was how do you think balance would be achieved in pvp’s current state? Generally by seeing a bunch of nerfs or by generally seeing a bunch of buffs? Most people agreed with me in thinking that classes need nerfs at the moment, not buffs. And through these nerfs would we find balance. > > > > > > > > > > > > According to the poll, the **VAST** majority of people agree with you. People saying it needs to be both are being too literal, I understand that you meant that the balanced team needs to change their perspective on balancing to be more focused on nerfing. > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, I think it is entirely possible to hold the "both" opinion, and that the way @"Poelala.2830" puts it isn't actually the right way to think about this, without being over-literal in reading the question. (Though, of course, it is their post, and I accept that they are empowered to judge my comments any way they want.) > > > > > > > > > > I think that, right now, most classes sit in a reasonable position in GW2. If you drew a graph of their DPS over time, *most* would be clustered fairly closely in the center, with a few distinct outliers above and below that single line, across the population. > > > > > > > > > > When I say both are needed, I mean that center line is actually, IMO, a reasonable position: not too strong, and not too weak, but rather, pretty good. So, bringing those outliers closer to the center is the best way to deliver overall a good result. If you just focus on bringing everything down to the lowest line, or raising them up to the highest line, you end up with a game where damage etc are either too low (and slow, and feel bad) or too high (and fast, and feel bad, because really it isn't much fun after the first time you one-shot everyone else.) > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree that most of what needs to happen is probably power reductions on a few specs. The number that are low seem, subjectively, to be smaller than the number that are high right now. I just don't think a good result is either "everyone is now at the level of the lowest", or "everyone is at the center, except the ones at the lowest". > > > > > > > > It was an either or question. Which is better, buffing or nerfing? You don’t respond with caramel when I ask if you like vanilla or chocolate more. > > > > > > OK, I'm sorry. Here is a response that matches the question asked: Your question is impossible to answer, because the real world is more complicated than that, and I can't reduce it to a simple "A or B" when the real answer is neither of them. > > > > > > I added the rest -- the "caramel" recommendation -- because I felt that simply saying "your question is incomplete and so unanswerable" and not adding anything more is unhelpful. > > > > > > I appreciate you can ask any question you like, in any framing you like, with any arbitrary restrictions you like, but ... I don't believe you get to have, how to put it... consequence-free speech here. Your post is public, and open to public comment, which means that you are subject to people who don't believe it is answerable telling you so. > > > > But you did answer it, and your answer was nerfing. Your same logic in that answer is the same logic everyone else who answered that way thought about it. > > Huh. I definitely don't see it that way, but I do appreciate your explanation. I certainly agree that "bring everyone up to the current top end" is not the right answer, with those posters. Anyway, it is very useful to me to have this feedback on how my discussion was heard, which can be very hard to know in a forum like this. > > Thank you very much. I think we both agree that Poe could've worded this in a way that allowed for **all** possible answers, including some that aren't completely one way or the other; he simply chose not to, in the same way that [the poll on whether or not Anet's changing of their social media logo was positive or negative](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/553697/#Comment_553697 "the poll on whether or not Anet's changing of their social media logo") deliberately did not include an "I don't care" option. If I'm understanding correctly, the point was to guide the discussion towards understanding which extreme the community prefers more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euthymias.7984 Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 Buffing and Nerfing like that is too black and white. Even for the most "OP" professions, there are things that are underused that could use buffing while (GRADUALLY) toning down the over-performing aspects. There are also traits/abilities that should get reworks or sidegrades to make them viable (even if its not optimal) to expand build diversity. But most importantly - unexpected high levels of over-performance needs to be seen to in LESS than 3 months. Its fine if the devs want time to brainstorm a fix/nerf/rework for such things, but it shouldnt take more than one month or two months, especially with community feedback for alternatives. And speaking of dialogue, it would be GREAT to know exactly what level of performance and roles Anet Devs have in mind when it comes to the professions and specs, and explain how their changes are to push towards that goal - because some things in the patch notes just become headscratchers otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.5684 Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Man you did not give much options. As a general rule, nerfing outliers works better for class balance. Buffing leads to power creep and highly unstable game. I think what works best is creating a base line. Clearly not so easy in sPvP. But let’s hypothetically claim that ranger is performing at base line (not necessarily this is the case, just an example). Classes out perform it will need a nerf. Classes under perform it will need a buff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovu.7560 Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Have any of you played Fire Emblem 10? Remember how units in that game promote twice instead of once resulting in a third tier? Remember how those overpowered third tier units were off the charts in the categories they specialized in? I.E. promoted knights could not be damaged, high strength axe users one shot everything (har Haar), units with abilities that proc'd sometimes based off their stats _always proc'd_ and units with high speed/luck could be hit precisely 0% of the time? Third tiers were a bad idea. They didn't work with the core mechanics. That's why they haven't had a Fire Emblem game like that since. Same thing applies here. When the game came out in 2012 the professions were meticulously balanced around the core mechanics of the game. Lots of basic game elements such as hit point pools, dodging, the number of skills you have access to, the speed at which your character moves among others haven't been touched since day 1. However, because of a lot of skill changes, specialization additions, core mechanic changes, character abilities/traits and changes to stats among other changes (such as profession "balance" and sigil/rune changes/additions) the basic game elements don't interact with the professions as they are now in a way similar to how they interacted in 2012. The game was a lot more balanced back then and the extremes (burst and sustain) weren't nearly as lopsided both ways. As a result the game was, on the whole, funner for everyone. So we need to take a step back. Obviously some professions more than others (I have my opinions on that, but I'll save it for another thread) but on the whole everything both on the offensive end of things and on the defensive need to be toned down so that everyone feels a little more effective in their fights whilst never being _too_ potent. There's probably an expression (I mean aside from "power creep") for the last three paragraphs, but I don't know it. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ Time to revisit some old Extra Credits videos. ~ Kovu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now