Balance: Shave vs Smiter's Boon-ing

[Zietlogik.6208]

Will there be a new way in which balance takes place, whereas "shave" changes are made, but done more frequently, and possibly outside of regular "quarterly" update patches?

 

And will skills that have essentially been "smiter's booned" (consistently nerfed, sometimes heavily, until it is no longer used) be reviewed and looked at in the future to see if the changes made no longer fit the current power level and place in the game? (ex. "Rise!" necromancer shout)

 

As well es more mechanical changes, that *look* minor, but impact more than it seems due to being more core to an entire class or spec. (ex. Reducing Reaper Shroud cooldown by 2-3 seconds)

[DiogoSilva.7089]

Shaving is not always the best way to balance. In my opinion, making sure that each build has clearly defined strengths and weaknesses is the most important part, and shaving may be or not be the way to achieve that, depending on each case. Skill reworks are one other way to achieve that goal, and sometimes the best (and less budget-friendly) one.

 

When a single build offers way too many advantages, what is the best approach in your opinion?

 

1. Tone down everything that makes it powerful (aka, shaving), at the risk of turning it into a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none?

2. Intentionally leave some strengths as they are, but completely remove some of the other strengths the build offers?

 

Nº 1 was, many (most?) times, the GW1 approach, and the endgame of that was a game with way too many mediocre, "shaved" skills that simply felt unimpactful, even when balanced.

 

In contrast, nº2 is usually the League of Legends/ Dota 2 approach, and is more noticeable in Dota, where builds are allowed to have some really crazy effects, at the cost of having really crazy weaknesses. This approach usually allows for more outplay/ counterplay potential, and also is, IMO, more psychologically satisfying to play with and master.

[Zietlogik.6208]

> @"DiogoSilva.7089" said:

> Shaving is not always the best way to balance. In my opinion, making sure that each build has clearly defined strengths and weaknesses is the most important part, and shaving may be or not be the way to achieve that, depending on each case. Skill reworks are one other way to achieve that goal, and sometimes the best (and less budget-friendly) one.

>

> When a single build offers way too many advantages, what is the best approach in your opinion?

>

> 1. Tone down everything that makes it powerful (aka, shaving), at the risk of turning it into a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none?

> 2. Intentionally leave some strengths as they are, but completely remove some of the other strengths the build offers?

>

> Nº 1 was, many (most?) times, the GW1 approach, and the endgame of that was a game with way too many mediocre, "shaved" skills that simply felt unimpactful, even when balanced.

>

> In contrast, nº2 is usually the League of Legends/ Dota 2 approach, and is more noticeable in Dota, where builds are allowed to have some really crazy effects, at the cost of having really crazy weaknesses. This approach usually allows for more outplay/ counterplay potential, and also is, IMO, more psychologically satisfying to play with and master.

 

the 2nd option is definitely the more flavorful approach and the more interesting one to keep life in a game, but in the end it all comes down to the complexity of the game that is being played. And in all fairness (using PvP for the example) you simply cannot compare Mobas like league or Dota to Gw2. If your build doesn't focus on standing in circles, getting to circles quickly, or fighting people in circles, it will not be favored, and becomes a massive roadblock to the overall variety and diversity the balance team can work around when changing skills and doing complete reworks.

 

Anet ever since launch has been a large benefactor to the "play how you want" style of game design, where all classes can almost do everything (heal, CC, support, dps, etc) and even though many classes are on different tiers on how well they achieve those goals, the archetypes are all completely blurred and become grey zones since classes are only thematic, instead of mechanically varied (outside of mesmer and thief to an extent, due to the mesmers main class mechanic and thieves mobility, these are the only 2 classes to me that feel like they have a defined "ability" other classes simply cannot emulate)

[DiogoSilva.7089]

> @"Zietlogik.6208" said:

> Anet ever since launch has been a large benefactor to the "play how you want" style of game design, where all classes can almost do everything (heal, CC, support, dps, etc) and even though many classes are on different tiers on how well they achieve those goals, the archetypes are all completely blurred and become grey zones since classes are only thematic, instead of mechanically varied (outside of mesmer and thief to an extent, due to the mesmers main class mechanic and thieves mobility, these are the only 2 classes to me that feel like they have a defined "ability" other classes simply cannot emulate)

 

In my opinion, Anet's original "play how you want" style has only lead to a game where "everyone plays the same", and it's just not very exciting.

 

Of course, map design/ objectives play a _massive_ role at dictating how much role diversity is allowed to happen, and PvP being stuck with Conquest does not helps with that.