A PvE Balance Manifesto

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"maddoctor.2738" said:

> > @"GammelTier.4875" said:

> > The following steps are made to achieve this:

>

> > Step 1 - Remove Alacrity

> > Step 2 - Remove unique Buffs like Empower Allies or Ranger Spirits

> > Step 3 - Limit the Boons a role can share:

>

> Your "solution" is to remove unique buffs like Alacrity and Spirits... why not do the opposite and give more of those buffs to other professions (that do not stack)?

 

Well... for one, builds are not equal, and as a result of this change, you go with whatever combination best hits the cap. Thats basically whats happening with Druid. Before Druid used to be taken for GotL unique buff being stackable, and Might was handled by a PS warrior. When GotL was converted to might, Druid was now the top Might stacking pick for ease of use, still had the spirits. This kicked warrior out of comp for Might stack, but held on because of Banners. So they effectively switched places.

 

In theory, making everything Boons would solve the larger problem of Comps trying to stack unique buffs for Max gains. But at the same time, you're then shifting the problem toward "who stacks boons better"; which is now stiff competition since most classes can now self-stack Might, and 3 classes are built around a Boon share concept.

 

 

But there is a common source to all of these problems...... Raids put too much emphasis on, and benefit too much from raw DPS. This is a problem across most of PvE, as fighting mobs doesn't take advantage of all the PvP aspects the classes were largely built around in concept. Quickness/Alacrity doubles the effective DPS of a player, which automatically makes Chrono the single strongest support slot in game. But what allowed it to be a ChronoTank is an AI and Encounter design that enables Mesmer's "untouchable" defense as a duelist to completely stymie bosses in 1v1. And since most boss fights without split-phases are designed this way to easily establish a "tank" requirement, its giving the high role compression Chrono manages to have universal value to the Raid scene.

 

I'm curious to see what a Raid comp would do in a 10v10 situation against doppelgangers, with each one fixating on their own counterpart. And could they solve this problem if they weren't given the opportunity to swap builds when the fight switches between normal big boss and 1v1 fights. I think I just came up with an idea for a new Raid Wing.

[InsaneQR.7412]

Well i red the stuff and i have to say i can agree to some extend.

 

Buffers should have retal, might and fury.

Support regen, vigor, swiftness and resistance (swiftness is pretty weak so resistance is qziet right here)

Tank protection, stab, aegis and quickness.

 

And id say scrapper should be high CC and dmg.

Chrono should be more power DPS and some CC.

 

Everything else seems fine IMO.

 

All your work is futile because i doubt it will ever happen, but i write such stuff too sooooo.... Keep it up man.

 

[Obtena.7952]

> @"GammelTier.4875" said:

> "No, thanks, then. Any system that formalizes any sort of trinity won't make the game more fun to play. (At least not for me nor the people with whom I play.) Especially any system that insists that specific specs have only one role."

>

> We already are in a situation where this is the case. When was the last time you have raided with a non-chrono tank? I at least cannot remember the day?

>

 

No we aren't at all. There is a difference between Anet formalizing classes for specific roles and players recognizing specific classes as optimized for those roles. In fact, EVEN if Anet were to formalize them, there would STILL be optimal classes/builds for roles that meta teams would want. While I couldn't be bothered to read a 15 page document, not even formalization will change how meta players want to play the game. Therefore, I see little reason for any to formalize roles at all.

 

 

[DeceiverX.8361]

> @"polvere.2805" said:

> TBH if i wanted to play WoW then i would be playing it instead of trying to make gw2 more like WoW.

>

> Right now the only role that is (almost) totally locked in place is the chrono (The fb/ren combo works even if FB is not really the top rn) so the argument of already having an unspoken trinity is invalid. The problem here is the chrono and the fact that no other class can do what the chrono can achieve.

>

> If we are talking about viability then you should know that a lot of classes are already viable in the healer spot, almost all dps classes are viable (maybe just reaper is the black sheep), the only real problem is the chrono spot that is hard to replace cause he does A LOT.

>

> You are trying to address in the game what is a community problem, in PuG everybody wants druid heal cause they are used to it. Everybody wants chrono cause they are used to it and they know the tactics with chrono.

> If you find yourself a static you will see that things are not so much set in stone as you claim they are, you can try to experiment new things

>

> If we are talking about META then...there will always be the meta, it will never exist a meta where everyone is ok. It's against the core idea of meta

 

Bingo.

 

There was a meta for dungeons that consisted of stacking berserker gs warriors, because the roles were designed to be optional and everyone got good at the game, and there's a meta for raids because the underlying flaws of the PvE in this game were not solved; things are a DPS/effect stacking race.

 

There will always be a single mathematical optimum, and that's all PvE in this game measures. As soon as one tank does slightly higher DPS than others, or just tanks a little bit better, or one of the DPS classes a prove a bit too selfish, there will always be one best configuration, because an optimum is singular by nature.

 

The absolute maximum potential unlocked by the players eeking out the most of the game's classes is always going to set precedents and elitists will always enforce them blindly even if they are not applicable to their environments, player skillsets, groups, guilds, etc.

 

Because most of the time, the optimum is not relevant to actually completing the content, as we've seen demonstrated a ton by many off-meta/fun-themed raid groups.

 

Profession design should be based on the PvP formats first and then tweaked numerically for PvE only if it's wildly over-performing.

Then PvE needs to be made more like PvP encounters, where PvE builds are hilariously bad and damage is almost totally meaningless so that these micro-optimizations are worthless.

 

If people want to be elitists about raids, then they should be barred behind outright difficult content where builds won't carry them by solving a very simple puzzle of "who fills the roles and stacks bonuses."

 

That was how the game originally released, and when we had to do dungeons in blues and greens, it was awesome, because outside of ressing you, nobody intrinsically had your back, and you died with simple misplays. Good players took advantage of combo fields and finishers as they arose. They were fast to react and went in with a strategy rather than spamming powerups. Sometimes, one lone dude carried the last 10% himself.

 

 

[Rhyse.8179]

> @"GammelTier.4875" said:

> Trinity

 

No.

 

GW2 does need more specialized roles - I highly agree. But the Trinity system is lazy and stupid. I'd expect GW2 to do better then that.

[Nightmare.1234]

the only reason I brought gw2 in first place was NO trinity. it nice that any profession can fill a role. but it up to balance to do a good job of that duty.

I read to the part where it said RAID then stopped caring like the 90% of the community that never wanted anet to add raids because it a casual game and raids breed toxicity.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"Nightmare.1234" said:

> I read to the part where it said RAID then stopped caring like the 90% of the community that never wanted anet to add raids because it a casual game and raids breed toxicity.

 

Raiding by default doesn’t breed toxicity. The problem is, sadly, that Anet (unintentionally) made Raids an optimal breeding ground for it.

 

- Timers leading to highest DPS meta or bust.

- “One mistake = wipe”-mechanics laying blame on a single player.

 

Stuff like that which can easily focus the anger and frustration of a wipe onto a single player. It didn’t have to be like that.

 

[Blocki.4931]

> @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > @"Nightmare.1234" said:

> > I read to the part where it said RAID then stopped caring like the 90% of the community that never wanted anet to add raids because it a casual game and raids breed toxicity.

>

> Raiding by default doesn’t breed toxicity. The problem is, sadly, that Anet (unintentionally) made Raids an optimal breeding ground for it.

>

> - Timers leading to highest DPS meta or bust.

> - “One mistake = wipe”-mechanics laying blame on a single player.

>

> Stuff like that which can easily focus the anger and frustration of a wipe onto a single player. It didn’t have to be like that.

>

 

To be fair... is there a better way to do it? Mistakes need harsh punishment to add the difficulty. Maybe a few more individual deaths that don't directly lead to a wipe would be cool, but idk

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"Blocki.4931" said:

> > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > @"Nightmare.1234" said:

> > > I read to the part where it said RAID then stopped caring like the 90% of the community that never wanted anet to add raids because it a casual game and raids breed toxicity.

> >

> > Raiding by default doesn’t breed toxicity. The problem is, sadly, that Anet (unintentionally) made Raids an optimal breeding ground for it.

> >

> > - Timers leading to highest DPS meta or bust.

> > - “One mistake = wipe”-mechanics laying blame on a single player.

> >

> > Stuff like that which can easily focus the anger and frustration of a wipe onto a single player. It didn’t have to be like that.

> >

>

> To be fair... is there a better way to do it? Mistakes need harsh punishment to add the difficulty. Maybe a few more individual deaths that don't directly lead to a wipe would be cool, but idk

 

Well, as you say, less emphasis on a single player causing the entire thing to fail and make both failing and winning more dependent on the group.

 

 

[Rhyse.8179]

> @"Blocki.4931" said:

> To be fair... is there a better way to do it? Mistakes need harsh punishment to add the difficulty. Maybe a few more individual deaths that don't directly lead to a wipe would be cool, but idk

 

Multiple difficulty modes. GW1 had "hard mode" which was much more punishing. Guideline is that in Normal it should be possible to recover from a mistake with excellent play, but multiple mistakes or poor play is fatal. In Hard mistakes are terminal, period. Current raid mechanics are pass/fail and thus what I consider closer to Hard Mode.

 

I theory this would let people do raid content without having to deal with the toxic elitist tier of players much.