Thoughts about general issues in PvP

[Crozame.4098]

Three thoughts about general issues related to future PvP balancing

 

1. ANET, when you gathering opinions from the forum regarding balance patches, please check people's PvP rating as well as their most played class. Players whose rating is below gold 1, 2, 3, or even plat 1 should have less or no say in the balance patches. Because mostly their complaints are learn to play issues. For example, Mirage, Engi, and maybe Soulbeast, might be less presented in lower ranks because beginners might shy away from those classes, but when people actually put effort to improve, those classes can be very strong. On the other hand, Warrior or Core Guard might be easy to start with, and they might be very power in lower ranks, but once people understand how they work, and understand to bite the Full Counter and dodge the hammer burst, they are not that strong anymore. It is really hard to play those classes in higher rankings. In sum, lower ranking players have less understanding of the game, and hence their opinions should be ignored.

Moreover, player's class should also be taken into account. For example, if a thief complaining that he cannot 1v1 an Holo or SB, and say the two classes should be nerfed. Then this comment should be ignored. Similarly, Necros, particularly Scourges who complaining that they cannot 1v1 some other classes on the side node should also be ignored. Each player has a role, and the balance should be based on their roles.

 

2. In ranked ques. It might be healthy to try as best as possible to match the scourge and Support combo. Many players do not understand to exploit the duo's low mobility and try to outrotate. Therefore, teams without that duo are in huge disadvantage, and I think it is not that fair. Of course, people might exploit them by switching classes. One solution is NOT to allow class swap (of course, in ATs or 5v5's it is fine to switch). Or, restrict swap to support classes or swap to support runes.

 

3. What is the logic of doing major patch during the season? I dont understand.

 

I really think the PvP system in this game is super! And please dont kill this game by keep providing terrible balances.

 

 

[reikken.4961]

You don't need to know what someone's rating is to see if their argument has any merit. Simply saying a class should be nerfed because you can't 1v1 it and giving no details is generally not a valid argument no matter what the rating is

 

to point 3, it's that Anet's pvp balance team has little to no say in how and when changes are rolled out

[Chilli.2976]

Main issue = too many casuals and no competitive incentive outside the game i.e ESPORTS - and no $10 prize pools are not ESPORTS.

[DoomNexus.5324]

Main issue = the pvp balance team has to take what the pve balance team says and make the best out of it.. but balancing a 10-man coordinated squad against 1 boss is hugely different than a 5v5 match with randoms where you also have to cap points, so while in PvE everything is fine balance-wise (I don't hear complaints that boss x or fractal y is unfun because it's too hard) PvP is just a clusterfuck of overpowered one-man-army specs or meme builds - or in some cases, some classes completely fall out of meta.

 

Also yes I think leaving the esport scene hurt the pvp massively but you just can't have an esport league without proper balancing. Look at overwatch, in the beginning everything was fine but the last few heroes fucked the balance and now it's declining. I mean ofc there are other factors as well but when (former) pro players start to make videos about overwatch being in a bad spot balance wise... I think it has impact.

 

PS: For point 1) of op: Anet takes a lot of data into account when they are balancing so it's not just like they are sitting in the forums and nerf/buff what ppl yell at them. But yea.. what I said before and @"reikken.4961" did -> the pvp balance team has little to no say when it comes to balancing (apparently they can just tweak numbers, nothing else)

[KryTiKaL.3125]

The main issues I see with Anet's balancing philosophy is that they don't have a test environment for the community to get their hands on upcoming or in the works balance changes. They test them internally and then unleash them on the live servers to then just "deal with later". I don't like that at all and it doesn't help things, it also makes balance a nightmare for *months* if something gets way, way overtuned or demolished in terms of balance.

 

There is also the issue that classes have changed drastically since the release of this game and yet Conquest as a game mode in sPvP has remained unchanged in these 6 years. With each expansion we've seen the addition of more and more AoE and that has simply dominated the sPvP environment because it takes extreme advantage of how Conquest *needs* to be played in order to win. The amount of and size of the AoE available now completely engulfs the capture points in Conquest, which is what has made Scourge stay meta since its release despite the nerfs it has gotten, Spellbreaker remained strong due to Full Counter being an unavoidable proc in team fights or fights on top of a capture point, mantra FB remaining strong in the support department due to the AoE healing and boon output, Holosmith because of its frequent AoE CC, forge mode 3 stability, and the frequency and amount of Mirage clones that can cover a capture point.

 

If you think back in time on how sPvP was and the meta that you saw, look at what typically dominated. Essentially anything with AoE was strong; Dragonhunter traps, Berserker with its Arc Divider, Chronomancer with its wells and sustain, Druid with its support and bunker capability, even Scrapper was up there due to some of the AoE that it had available to it, Reaper as well with the AoE boon corrupts and condi pressure despite their intentions for it to be power based. Look further back than that, what was meta? Hambow Warrior, trap rangers, the bomb/grenade engis, and on and on it goes with the AoE which has only gotten stronger and more frequent as time has gone one.

 

At this point Conquest as a game mode is barely competitive because the competitive meta itself is built around cheesing how it functions. Which to that point its kind of sad that the 2v2 map won't be in a ranked rotation or a ranked option, at least as far as we know, because *that* would probably be a ton more competitive or at the very least give better perspective to what needs to get toned down or tuned up in terms of balance because what we have now is a nightmare.

[Crozame.4098]

Well, so, please just completely separate the balance in different game modes. Might solve some issues.

[Mathias.9657]

PTR in 2018/19 ? ANet says "p'shaw!"

 

We're too different to have basic MMO structure. But hey, not like PTR every helped WoW or any other game actually get balanced lolz the devs just ignore literally every piece of feedback regardless so we're screwed either way.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

> @"Mathias.9657" said:

> PTR in 2018/19 ? ANet says "p'shaw!"

>

> We're too different to have basic MMO structure. But hey, not like PTR every helped WoW or any other game actually get balanced lolz the devs just ignore literally every piece of feedback regardless so we're screwed either way.

 

Whats interesting too is that they *could* actually do it. I asked a dev directly about why there isn't a PTR or test server for testing upcoming changes and they said that there are technical restraints that keep them from doing it.

 

*However* I don't entirely believe that to be true. For instance, we've seen them hold these beta weekend events prior to expansion releases. Every player is given access to a special character slot, this character slot requires you to make a new character and these characters have access to the content they've provided for this weekend event. Elite specs, special boxes with gear and runes and sigils, and access to certain areas of a new zone. This is all because they shadow patch upcoming content into the game to make the transition into the release of the expansion smoother.

 

So my question is why they don't apply this method to giving players access to a test environment like how we have the PvP lobby or we have the Special Forces Training Area for PvE. Granted this might require either designing a new area *or* they can duplicate the PvP lobby into a new zone specifically for these testing purposes. I don't think there is a technical hurdle here because they have literally already done it with the beta weekend events. Remember, Revenant started off with not having two weapon sets, then players got their hands on it during the beta weekend event for Heart of Thorns and gave feedback and boom...weapon swap came to Revenant.

[Apolo.5942]

> @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> > @"Mathias.9657" said:

> > PTR in 2018/19 ? ANet says "p'shaw!"

> >

> > We're too different to have basic MMO structure. But hey, not like PTR every helped WoW or any other game actually get balanced lolz the devs just ignore literally every piece of feedback regardless so we're screwed either way.

>

> Whats interesting too is that they *could* actually do it. I asked a dev directly about why there isn't a PTR or test server for testing upcoming changes and they said that there are technical restraints that keep them from doing it.

 

Im a develeper my self.

 

Generally speaking good practices require a minimum of 3 working environments,

 

"Development": where you actually program and blow things up.

"Homologation": As close to the real live environment where the development will actually function. (this is where test servers would be).

"Production": Live game servers.

 

The fact that they lack these 3 very basic things is very telling from a profesional point of view.

[Vrath.1754]

> @"Apolo.5942" said:

> > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> > > @"Mathias.9657" said:

> > > PTR in 2018/19 ? ANet says "p'shaw!"

> > >

> > > We're too different to have basic MMO structure. But hey, not like PTR every helped WoW or any other game actually get balanced lolz the devs just ignore literally every piece of feedback regardless so we're screwed either way.

> >

> > Whats interesting too is that they *could* actually do it. I asked a dev directly about why there isn't a PTR or test server for testing upcoming changes and they said that there are technical restraints that keep them from doing it.

>

> Im a develeper my self.

>

> Generally speaking good practices require a minimum of 3 working environments,

>

> "Development": where you actually program and blow things up.

> "Homologation": As close to the real live environment where the development will actually function. (this is where test servers would be).

> "Production": Live game servers.

>

> The fact that they lack these 3 very basic things is very telling from a profesional point of view.

 

As a dev you should know we dont actually know what or how many servers they have setup. To assume they don't have multiple environments setup from Dev, to qa deployment test, qa new features, qa LW ect, lacks professional courtesy or insight into the process.

 

We dont have access to their QA environments and let's be honest it is pretty naive to assume they dont have multiple server environments. It comes across like unaware user talk not experienced dev.

 

Do you truly think they really just dev patches up and never deploy the builds till they go live?

Come on, that doesnt make sense they surely have multiple environments, in multiple build states. Given the size of this DBs and code base

If that were truly the case there would be a lot more deployment bugs for one. VMs are cheap these days.

 

That said, there are always going to be bugs and there are always going to be issues for users with Develpers vision or lack there of vision for the changes deployed.

[DanAlcedo.3281]

Telling the little man his voice is worthless is maaaaaaybe not the best idea.

 

They may be bad but they are many.

[apharma.3741]

> @"Vrath.1754" said:

> > @"Apolo.5942" said:

> > > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> > > > @"Mathias.9657" said:

> > > > PTR in 2018/19 ? ANet says "p'shaw!"

> > > >

> > > > We're too different to have basic MMO structure. But hey, not like PTR every helped WoW or any other game actually get balanced lolz the devs just ignore literally every piece of feedback regardless so we're screwed either way.

> > >

> > > Whats interesting too is that they *could* actually do it. I asked a dev directly about why there isn't a PTR or test server for testing upcoming changes and they said that there are technical restraints that keep them from doing it.

> >

> > Im a develeper my self.

> >

> > Generally speaking good practices require a minimum of 3 working environments,

> >

> > "Development": where you actually program and blow things up.

> > "Homologation": As close to the real live environment where the development will actually function. (this is where test servers would be).

> > "Production": Live game servers.

> >

> > The fact that they lack these 3 very basic things is very telling from a profesional point of view.

>

> As a dev you should know we dont actually know what or how many servers they have setup. To assume they don't have multiple environments setup from Dev, to qa deployment test, qa new features, qa LW ect, lacks professional courtesy or insight into the process.

>

> We dont have access to their QA environments and let's be honest it is pretty naive to assume they dont have multiple server environments. It comes across like unaware user talk not experienced dev.

>

> Do you truly think they really just dev patches up and never deploy the builds till they go live?

> Come on, that doesnt make sense they surely have multiple environments, in multiple build states. Given the size of this DBs and code base

> If that were truly the case there would be a lot more deployment bugs for one. VMs are cheap these days.

>

> That said, there are always going to be bugs and there are always going to be issues for users with Develpers vision or lack there of vision for the changes deployed.

 

Actually we know they have test servers and that some players do play on them. Remember when raids first came out and DnT one of the raid testers cleared it in a few hours and proclaimed worlds first clear? They were kicked out of the testing programme for that.

 

I've also spoken to someone who played on a friends account who had access to the PoF development alpha/beta. He told me maybe a year before PoF came out they were working on the next expansion, that weaver would get a dual attunement mechanic (was still under development) that would let them use fire and water etc. He told me we would be fighting Balthazar, warriors would get dagger and so would ranger, ranger would get a way to fight without the pet, mesmer would get axe and be another condition spec. Thief would be stealth based, engineer he said something to do with forging weapons, didn't pay attention.

 

Either way there are test servers, some people have access and I believe at least some ANet partners can use it, ever wondered how Tekkit's workshop released a video on what the legendary armour looked like before the patch hits?

 

The guy is definitely not extending professional courtesy and isn't appreciating that there may be a time difference between his terminology and the processes that ANet employs. For example a friend of mine asked me about ICE in relation to patient interviews. I had no idea and have never heard the term, it stands for Ideas, Concerns, Expectations and is what they teach as an acronym but when I covered the subject we were just told patients have expectations on what is going to happen and that they may use google to create a diagnosis themselves which you have to try very hard to not get sucked into. Over time you develop the same skills and while they aren't explicitly stated as Ideas and Concerns when learning you still follow the same process.

[Apolo.5942]

> @"apharma.3741" said:

> The guy is definitely not extending professional courtesy and isn't appreciating that there may be a time difference between his terminology and the processes that ANet employs. For example a friend of mine asked me about ICE in relation to patient interviews. I had no idea and have never heard the term, it stands for Ideas, Concerns, Expectations and is what they teach as an acronym but when I covered the subject we were just told patients have expectations on what is going to happen and that they may use google to create a diagnosis themselves which you have to try very hard to not get sucked into. Over time you develop the same skills and while they aren't explicitly stated as Ideas and Concerns when learning you still follow the same process.

 

Are you really that certain? Half the Sword Skins in the game are wielded Backwards, have off proportions and are griped at off places. That is not something that escapes some basic testing and QA.