Lessons from Guild Wars

then the build we bring is not good enough? we can't go into a battle with a build that can use on map A situation C and not Map B situation D, see? why does no one change the build that they have instead of cry berf? nerf the "over powered" other build that most players like to use, if you come up with a build that can counter the supposedly "overpowered" build then its not overpowered anymore, if a team and its playing can have a build that can counter all maps all situations, then they can called themselves knowledgeable and skillful, otherwise is just good ping.

gone to bed btw. i don't need make up to look like a panda :P~

This type of counter argument is horrid, if you were looking towards any other game that’s out there in the market.

So you think it’s absolutely fine in having two (heal/prot) monks on a team of six/eight then just having one? I am not blaming the core mechanic of being a monk at fault for what it does naturally. I am talking about it’s dependency level should be cut in half; so that way they can use other attributes, besides doing the same thing over and over again (healing and protecting). I would say give them a little more of an offensive role as well, and not just in making them a full fledged warrior. I am taking about give them certain types of skills; like the functionality of the weapon spells that the Ritualist has. If they would have fixed it’s smiting attribute in the first place, then this would be less of a problem to begin with. Right now most offensive type of monks is looked down upon beyond PvE.

You even pointed out that some of the core classes in being merged with the new classes; in which this would probably give new characteristics and option then they had before. Actually this is where my argument stands, because then you would get more mileage out of that class instead of moving on to another. I believe that all that classes should go through a re-tool process where there is always that possibility to discover new and interesting builds.

Are you trying to be cynical, because obviously it’s not working? Hey, I hear everyone jumping off a cliff so maybe you should go join them. If you want to participate in the argument then come up with much more of a civilized back up clause, then being the common jester.

sindex,

being dependent of each other amongst your team is one of the thing that differentiate GW from other mmorpg. sometime warrior need to support your monks too, incase you don't notice, the whole team depends on each other, otherwise we can all bring health and energy potion and voila, and every other class has the same set of skills with different names put on them, same armor strength and none have interrupt skills and every one can tank and heal just as good, which is just not good. actually its good, except for someone who doesn't want to play in a team.

okay bed :P

you were claiming that an entire team's defense is ENTIRELY dependent on two monks. that is incorrect. JR was merely pointing that out to you. heck, by your argument, a team's entire offense is ENTIRELY dependent on two frontliners, where it is in fact dependent on the entire team.

heed your own advice.

If being JR's court jester involves the layman terms of what he means and bringing a little amusement to some, then I'm up for that...

besides, thats the way it sounds to me from his explanation anyway

Don't know if this has been brought up earlier in this thread but; the skill balancer should without doubt have great knowledge of the game, but participating in competitive gameplay may also backfire the skillbalancing with unintended influence from unforseen human error, e.g; frustration with a certain decision leading to irradical skill changes.

I have no clue about how much Izzy interacted with competitve players/guilds, but seeing as most of them are/were unsatisfied with his balancing he should have done it more.



About tournaments; The championship with prize money definately gave a bigger impression of "end-game" than these monthly tournaments which basically is one big dice roll race to easy money trims.

The lessons are focused mainly on optimizing PvP balance, based on negative experiences from the past, and thus sound like "Guild Wars I v2.0" to me.

Nothing bad about that, but it sounds much more useful for a final balance of Guild Wars 1 skills. Some things are probably indeed broken beyond repair, the mentioned Ritualist class issue e.g.


The problem is, we know nothing - not little, literally nothing - about the progress of GW2 yet. We do not even know how much of the information released in PC Gamer way back in time is still up to date.

GvG with full UAX from the start was mentioned, but we do not even know if HA or some equivalent will exist. We read about very "MMOish" tendencies, more races and so on.

We were also told that there would be larger, more "open" instances, meaning that people could join in more easily. That there would be "worlds"... now the problem is, if they really go that much the MMO route, would they not have to design a lot of things totally different?

I.e. if chars should walk around all alone, not just for farming, with their "sidekick" but no party, would this still be Guild Wars? Would skills and mobs not have to be adjusted an awful lot to fit this new kind of gameplay? This would basically mean, start balancing from scratch!

I mean till we know not at least something about GW2, we can not even speculate on new PvP modes, PvE or whatever. I am not sure if the Guild Wars 2 is going to be very much like Guild Wars 1. This does not seem to be an Everquest 1 -> Everquest 2 update with changes and improvements. It is more like trying to make Guild Wars a fully fledged MMORPG.

I smell a huge focus on PvE, not so much optimization for PvP, coming. I also fear they are somehow going the "Lich King" route: PvE content cannot be easy enough, skills not overpowering enough - and there must be tons of loot. Just like Blizzard redesigned the once ultra-hardcore Naxxramas in the total opposite, a super easy dungeon lootfest.

I also see the same trend coming for PvP: Something like ultra-casual Alliance Battle style PvP. More gung-ho clobbering than a thinking man's e-sport pvp.

disclaimer: I did not read all this thread but from what I did read I see a lot of talk about the divide in the PvE and PvP community, and the troubles of players jumping the gap and getting into PvP.

First off, yes a lot of PvP players are full of themselves. And yes I'll admit it, we often do think we are better than the majority of PvE players. Reasoning behind that is, when you go into RA or AB and see the players who use those two areas as their only form of PvP and normally PvE, they bring very bad builds and are very easy to kill. That is also why a lot of GvGers do not consider AB and RA as a good representation of PvP (me being one of them).

Secondly, not all of us are a-holes. I like to think I am very nice and patient with those who I deem "normal" (meaning not totally clueless that I would have to take months explaining basic concepts to you). A lot of the GvG community gets this bad rep from the QQ forums, which is designated as the dominate pvp forum. QQ forums used to be filled with good topics and a lot of nice responses and guides on how to improve the game. But because Axiom likes to moderate it as little as possible, it became a haven for trolls and a lot of people found them so funny and amusing, that they decided to become bad trolls and this annoyed everyone who went there for a good discussion to the point they stopped caring. Therefore QQ has become over run by bad players who troll even worse than they play. They do not represent the pvp community.

Now there was talk about getting into pvp being next to impossible if you did not start from the beginning. I disagree with this because I did not buy the game until well after factions release. I did not get into pvp until around December 2007. I have competed in multiple Mat's now and have come out with a trim. (unfortunately it was a bronze ). And like JR had said earlier, a lot of players who are in top guilds now did not start from the beginning, in fact some even later than when I did. I haven't moved up further than what I did because as I was increasing in skill level and finally won a trim, I decided to concentrate on my studies and have given up competitive Guild Wars (that along with the meta getting stale and my guild Diablo III disbanding).

Basically, people do not have the patience required to get into PvP. It takes around a year for you to start moving into the area where you can competitively compete in mat's. A lot of the people I have played with and tried to grow into PvP play about a month, get tired of losing and give up. I guess I may need to add I started off in a PvE guild, where I became the teams all around caller (I did tactics and spikes and microd everyone and I did this without ever playing a gvg before). I was able to because before I ever played 1 match, I studied the game and got ahold of vent recordings of top guilds (rawr is very generous with these and if you can't find them talk to polly or pounds, and I'm sure they will help you find some). You don't take a test without studying the information on it first, and you don't gvg without knowing the ins and outs first. Once you know the basics well, you have to learn through playing and losing. You gain 1 pound of knowledge from a win but 1000 tons from a loss.

Now, I do realize in today's game if you are American, it is almost impossible to break into pvp. I for one, do not pick up random pve players and help them break into gvg anymore like I used to, because I frankly hardly play the game aside from BYOB's with my new guild of people I had started to gvg with. But I am sure there are people out there who are willing to still do that. You have to take the time to look for them and be willing to take a lot of losses. Frankly, only about 1 out of every 20 people I met where able to do this.

P.S. Sorry if this post has a ton of mistakes I am trying to write it quick because I have class in 5 minutes.

An easy way to fix that is to have a team of skill balances who are not allowed to be in the same guild. You may have trouble getting stuff done because of conflicting ideas, but most people generally agree on what is broken and what really isn't and this would prevent radical and unnecessary changes to favor one play style over the other. Which is what balance is, the ability to properly run any play style (which can be generally defined as Split, Pressure, and Spike) and have the ability to be just as successful as the others.

Obviously play styles go deeper than those three because a lot of builds have the ability to do 2 or even all three of those things mentioned, but those are the basic generalizations.

EDIT: and sorry for double post.

I not claiming the entire team just does not matter overall, and I am not saying that everything depends on the monk. Can you have a well balanced team without a full fledged (heal & protection) monk from point A to point B all the time? I am talking about the idea that it should have a small offensive role. Maybe one or two skills they can use in there skill bar as a support offensive role (not front lines). Unfortunately that does not happen, since basically most of the skills in the typical bars include only protection/healing skills only (no smites).

I will say it again that the smiting attribute should have been fixed. Otherwise we are taking in the idea that the profession does not need to be touched since it is perfect. Furthermore that any merging to the monk profession is not a valid one, since obviously it’s fine where it stands. I agree with JR when he talks about the merging of the Rit and Monk for certain attribute(s).

I was defending myself by terms if one person takes a swipe at the other person. Fine I won’t lower myself by talking back to someone who enjoys being a heckler. I will just ignore it next time.

I don't know what you mean by interaction, but he was a frequent and very capable pvp player for a long time. Not sure about now.

I don't quite get your beef, but what's stopping you from bringing "support offensive" skills from your secondary? If its just that you end up with a fail build, I have a really hard time seeing your design concerns.

BTW, guys, what is wrong with you?

It is also bad style from JR to jump sindex with this "little understanding of the game" thing. JR, you were a CM for Fury some time ago, did you encourage and foster a new community in this way?

sindex made a thoughtful posting and deserves some more respect than just bashing one point in the entire posting. I also wonder why moriz has to explain what JR meant, it was very clear, I just say he definitely could have said this without the first line.

I'm certainly not working here, or getting paid to develop this community.

That aside, you are right. It was an unnecessary jab, and I apologize.

It’s because my experience with PvP as a monk. I have never once asked been to bring any skills outside the divine favor, healing prayers, or protection prayers. However if it does come from outside the attributes it’s usually only energy management skills for yourself. There is only a handful of smiting skills that are kind of accepted but rarely ever used; because the healing and protection is in a higher demand category.

I guess it really comes down to having to rely on common skills repeatedly, while most of the other skills go unnoticed. I rather have more choices grounded in that profession then the norm all the time. You could say I could always play any of the other professions or switch my secondary professions if I felt that way. However to me it would help if they fixed some of the useless skills (that don’t fuse well with other skills) for that profession or even knock off some of those duplicate skills. I just like variety.

I should have never picked the monk as my primary argument, because I guess it’s a harder choice to explain. I should have just opened it to interpretation for each of the classes and been more general. I really don’t mean to be so radical on saying that monk profession is absolutely dependable, since that is easy to take way out of context. I apologies for that little mix up.

You seem to want every class to be able to do everything and all have the same roles. Why? Every role in pvp contributes to the functioning of the build and the success of the team, just in different ways. What's the reasoning behind making every role the same? Why do monks need to be able to contribute to the offense through damage when they already contribute by keeping the front+midlines clean/not dead?

is it possible to have only 1 monk in an 8v8 pvp arena? yep. byob generally uses one monk.

is it possible to have only 1 monk in general pve? yep, i've done it. i've played as the only monk in a human party through 2 of the ascension missions, with a level 11 monk. i would've done the 3rd also, except one of the players was so awestruck by my performance, that he paid for a runner to run me through the last mission. if it's possible to have a level 11 monk solo in a party in the ascension missions, then it's possible to only have one monk in general pve also. btw, my eighth skill on that monk was bane signet, which i used to relieve pressure for myself. there goes the "smiting is never used" argument.

btw, the reason why smiting generally sucks, is because having such a powerful defensive character being able to deal significant damage is just plain overpowered. if smiting skills were to be more powerful, we'll have the GW's equivalent of the WoW druid.

You can correct me if I am wrong on this, but I believe you are stating you disdain the fact that monks are forced to bring all heal and prot and not be allowed to do an adequate job healing or protting and being able to smite at the same time?

If that is the case I completely disagree with what you want. A monk that puts points into damage needs to be able to sacrifice its healing/protting ability. Now I know you don't mean go all out big damage and killing everything in your path while healing ungodly amounts of damage at the same time, and that you are instead stating you would like to be able to do your job and still contribute something to the offense. The only problem with that is, in the current state, you have to invest a considerable amount of attribute points into smiting in order to make a skill like castigation signet be worthwhile. I know that is something you would like to be reworked, but frankly it is fine the way it is.

If you are going to do large amounts of damage, you should have to invest a lot into that damage and then lose a lot in survivability. If you are going to invest a lot in survivability, you should lose a lot in damage. If you want to invest a little into both, you should be mediocre at both aspects. That doesn't just apply to monks, that applies to every class in the game. If you want to buff one area, you should have to sacrifice another area equal to your buff.

Now if i didn't comprehend your point correctly, you can completely ignore this, although I still stand by what I say about buffing one area sacrifices another.

A lot of people are torn when it comes to their opinions of Izzy but I think many of them have an unfair view of him. Izzy has to get all his balance changes approved by a group of Anet employees who focus on PvE. Many changes he suggests get shot down by them because they believe it will hurt the PvE balance or don't understand the effects it will have on PvP. Because of this you see different changes being pushed out into the update, instead of the ones Izzy originally wanted. If Anet cut out the middle men would Izzy do a better job balancing? I'm not sure; I'd like to think so, but until it actually happens we'll never know. Just something to keep in mind when talking about Izzy in terms of the control he has over balancing the game.

I suppose this is less of an issue after the PvE/PvP split, but I think their are still middle men between Izzy and his changes. I haven't kept up with Guild Wars info in a while.


The Championships were probably the biggest mistakes in terms of the Guild Wars PvP Scene. Sure it was awesome during the championships. However, they started off to big and nothing after could impress. And consider this - if they hadn't had the Championships they could have done $125,000 AT's every a month, for a few years straight. The constant stream of prize money is enough to continue to draw tons of new players in. Definitely a big mistake on Anets part.

And you really suppose there are middle men between Izzy and his changes, and they turn gold into dust? He said himself he is the team lead on his Wiki page, so who is the unknown guy who rejects half of his suggestions?

Could you specify who told you that Izzy has to go to some designer, say Eric Flannum, who then shoots down the balance suggestions because he fears for PvE balance or enjoyment?

I put this on guildhall.net so ill just post it here again.


The general outline is good but I disagree on quite a lot of details. I see this game from another viewpoint, which I will outline first. Then I will reply on the details. Also I'm definately up for going through this tonight on the radioshow.

I like buildwars to an extent. I love how preparing for your opponent in a certain way can gain you the benefit in a tournament. Of course rock paper scissors is something completely different. From this perspective I think a lot of builds should have a niche of play. I think hex builds, (caster)spike builds, physical, conditionbuilds, those gimmicks should have a place somewhere to suprise opponents. It will test people's ability to react on completely new situations, something I consider much more a part of "skill" than drilling one build perfectly and being able to beat anyone with that in a mirrormatchup.* At the same time it's is the balancer's burden to make sure none of these builds does not overstep it's boundaries. I think the post-factions era was absolutely fantastic and you could run many different builds without a particular advantage to any, only slight advantages in some matchups. Yes, sometimes you will lose because you did your physical build against a hex build. I think this is a small price to pay for great variation in builds and player abilities, making the game MUCH more fun.

This kind of balance is hard to achieve, but so much more fun than a stale but balanced meta. For instance if everyone in starcraft would only play Zerg it would be balanced but not fun. It also puts requirements on skills. Particularly elite skils.
1) A skill should not be so strong and "gimmicky" that it dictates an entire class or even attribute line. Examples are: Word of Healing, (old) Searing Flames, Lingering Curse, Blinding Surge
2) A skill should preferably be versatile; have multiple uses in different situations. Examples: Gale, Blackout, all interrupts, Diversion, the entire concept of energy denial, snares, Windborne speed.**
3) A skill should provide skillfull play, in other words: if a skill it spammed it should be MUCH less powerfull than when it's being used carefully. Examples: Blinding Flash, Ice Spikes, Deep Freeze, Blackout. Also Bsurge is a funny example. Although this skill has many problems the old version where it gave AoE on enchanted targets made it so much more fun to play. Why they removed this clausule is proof alone to put izzy away in an asylum.
4) Skills should force you to look at your screen. A monk should make clever guardians. Warriors should recognize enchantments. Mindblasters only need to check their targets on the T screen and not really ingame, unless they realize it has spiritbond. They don't have to actually look at where the guy is. Interface should not be too fancy and not too easy.
5) Single skills that can shut down an entire build or class. Of course it's automatically overpowered if it can do this. But izzy doesn't seem to realize. Powerleak can singlehandedly take care of any elementalist build in the game. Shields used to win rangers. Spiritbond destroys any form of caster damage. Peace and Harmony laughs in the face of snares.

When making a new game it is extremely hard to put all this thought behind the skills your making because you don't really know how the game is going to work. I would say the release of a game and an initial skill is always a shot in the dark. After that balance has to be done properly.

In general this is how I would describe ArenaNet: Incredibly talented and dedicated game designers and programmers. They put a lot more effort in this game than they "had" to. Only some things weren't though out properly, but mostly: There has been almost no communication between the community and the game designers themselves. This means we could cry and cry and cry for a team arena ladder, an auction house, and reconnects without reply, but we'd get sorrows furnace, snowball tournaments, Hero Battle tournaments, and more stuff we didn't really need badly. Mostly I just blame Gaile Gray for this, but even when Andrew Patrick was around things weren't exactly perfect either. Why didn't Anet just appoint someone (Izzy, Andrew, Alex Weekes, or even Gaile because it was her job) to come on Weapon of Choice and answer questions weekly?


Now on to what JR said:
This is an undeniable fact. Though when faced with such a catastrophe I think completely reworking a class isn't the answer because it includes too many risks and takes a LOT of effort. Instead think about this for a second:

Every build can be divided into these categories.
A: This is the build that defines a class in GvG. A class often has often 1, 2 or perhaps 0 A builds. Examples are/were: Shock Axe, Cripshot, E-surge mesmers, Bsurgers. These roles defined the class, and not the other way around.
B: These are the niche builds. The gimmicky builds that have use in only certain situations. Uses only in certain maps, uses only in AB, Byob, RA, or in hex builds. Examples are/were: Illusionists, Iway warriors, Any elementalist with lightning hammer, Tank dervishes.
C: Miscelaneous. Builds that don't really work at all but are fun to play some times (battle rage warriors). Pve builds, gimmicky one hit characters.

I'd say the failed classes should not be allowed to have an A build. however B or C builds should definately be possible, because it adds a lot of fun to the game. For instance the wastrels collapse sin we run in SuKa is a great B build. Powerful and EXTREMELY fun to run in byob, but it's **** when it comes to real gvg.

One example i'd like to make is the recent nerfing of the turret ranger. Flail and Read the Wind were nerfed. This did effectively remove the turret ranger from top level play, but the nerf of read the wind destroyed dozens of B and C builds that relied on it. Read the winds was fine and definately not the problem of why the turrets were so powerful. Nerfing it did "solve" the problem, but made the game less fun because it destroyed so much.

If a class is truely broken beyond repair that it cannot even produce B builds without overpowered (ritualists). Then well, it's a balance issue and needs adressing. Just keep in mind how builds work.

Because I like build wars. I think these builds should be somewhat viable. Only one should be EXTREMELY careful. I like the thought how you could run a hex build with 4 hexers and shut down almost any character. Only this went at the cost of autoloss against casterspike and an inability to split. Also balanced builds that split and adrenalinespiked properly (or in other words: skillfull play) could beat you. Again this is hard to balance, but oh so vital in making the game diverse and fun to play. One of the problems we've had is the way izzy balances. He beats around the bush and buffs the counter instead of the actual problem. Example is strong partyhealing -> Lingering curse -> Peace and Harmony. Or Ranger Spike -> Buff to shields up. Or what about Spiritbond -> Rend Enchantments -> Guardian -> Pain of Disenchantment.

These should be removed from the game as much as possible. Fastcast sets should be removed. Blocks should either offer extremely high percentages or be reworked. Why the **** does blind have a 10% chance to hit? I've lost (and won) so many games because some RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO hit through my perfect blind, or because I hit through his perfect blind with my sin. I've lost games because I did not get a fast cast on my snare so the opponent got their flag in. I can think up of hundreds of examples where I lost or won because of some ****ty coinflip.

Consider if the downside of frenzy was: You have a 50% chance to take four times the amount of damage. It would be exactly as strong but it would be ridiculously stupid. I'd say rework skills as much as possible to remove chance. Coinflips are extremely unfavorable. Ranger 1on1's were more fun with the 75% distortion instead of the 50% natural stride. Try something like Aegis; "For X seconds your team takes 50% less physical damage."


I don't like this because it completely removes the suprise effect from games. Especially on ladder suprise should be total. If the opponent doesn't know they're facing you it allows you to be much more free in your build choice, making the game more fun. Of course this does not apply in tournaments. I love the 5 minute build change time.

I agree with everything youb say. Also your tag should change color in according to your guild rank. Rank 1-20 blue, rank 21-50 red. Something like that. Visual pimpification and e-peen is EXTREMELY important and stimulating.

Getting PvP out there
There are barely any PvPers. Partly this is the accesibility problem, but mostly this is the lack of "marketing." ArenaNet can make global messages and messages at your log in screen. Every monthly tournament it should say on your log in screen with some juicy text like "Will Rebel Rising [rawr] continue their win streak" and there should be a global announcement "The April monthly tournament starts in 1 hour, press B to observe matches. Do you not know what a MAT is? Go to our gwwiki or the isle of the nameless and participate for awesome prizes!" Why is it the tombs gets a global message every 10 minutes and GvG does not?

Yeah that's basically it.




* Example: first implementations of sinsplit, when people still ran a 1w 2e midline and not a 3me one. This build was easily beatable with tactics and with the guilds I was in we never had problems with them. Other guilds did not react properly and lost, eventhough they could have easily won (*cough rawr, vD *cough*) It showed how some guilds were so stuck in being able to play only one type of strategy they could not quickly switch their mindset.
** Funny how all those great skills got nerfed or overruled by much more powerful **** skills.

I have to disagree with the chance portion of it; there should be some element of it present. Just enough to still give the losing team somewhat of a chance IF they can use it correctly. 100% skill would just end up favoring one team the whole time. Chance gives the opportunity to mix things up, but not enough to completely turn the tables without proper use.

Kaon didn't specifically say 100%. In fact he mentioned how he liked distortions 75% chance. Although he did imply blind should be 100% which i dont know whether to agree with or not, because I like the idea but even flailing your arms around aimlessly is bound to hit something if it stands close enough.

I believe his main quirk was with fast casting sets which are dumb and really do need to be taken out of the game. There is no proper use of half casts, you either get them or you don't. Whether you get a kill or not shouldn't have anything to do with whether you got off a half cast or not, it should be about whether you timed the right skill or skills at the correct time.

Whenever I hit through a stance or blind I feel fantastic. Whenever I get hit through my lightning reflexes I feel terrible. Two months ago we lost our bronze cape in a monthly tournament because a ranger hit his interrupts and burning arrows through LR 5 times in a row.

It's a tradeoff. Yes. But a good one. Also chances don't have to be completely removed, just try to keep their influence on the game as low as possible.

Its tough reading your posts with that avatar staring at me.

There are middle men. Being the leader of a team doesn't mean the team does everything you want them to do. Likewise, working alone doesn't mean there aren't people who are required to check your work.

But for all we know, they're turning purple dust into green dust.

It sounds logical, but it is also an awful lot of speculation, this "unknown guy" or "middle man". You put part of the blame on this unknown entity. But in the end it is the team leader who decides and is responsible for the team and its success. And this is exactly Izzy's position. Not longer for GW1, he is working on GW2 right now. I wonder what balances the new team will present us tomorrow.

I know you want to point out that he is responsible to some kind of "big boss" in the end, but I just do not see Mike O'Brien, Patrick Wyatt, Jeff Strain as executive producers or the other designers mentioned in the credits as responsible for his balancing successes or failures.

If this Mr. X exists and is responsible for Izzy's not so impressive track record, Halleluja... we can only hope he disappears before GW2 goes live...^^

Balance is not just one mans job, and never has been. Izzy is part of a team of designers, and whilst he is ultimately responsible for implementation he is not the only influence on it, nor the only one making suggestions.

I don't really think any of the elements of chance we are taking about are ever going to benefit anyone that isn't already in a very evenly fought match. At that point it just becomes annoying, to lose because of a percentage.

Think of the Catapult maps for example. Many times I have seen someone split all over the place on Warriors against some gimmick, managing to get to VoD with a decent number of their NPCs still up, not too much DP, and with their catapult repaired. As VoD hits they run to hit the lever and nuke all of their opponents NPCs, reversing the tide of the game and sealing a victory. But the catapult has other ideas. It decides it's going to hit far left of the courtyard, missing NPC route by a good football pitch or two. The gimmick build keeps their NPCs, marches in and blows everyone up. The end.

It works both ways. Elements of chance don't make the game easier or more fun for any particular party.

The only true balanced PVP in this game are like the Snowball fights and the Dragon Wars because everybodys bar is practically the same with only a handful of gimmick skills for the fun of it I suppose like yellow snow an avalanche. Be that as it may those are still the most balanced PVP matches in the entire PVP world. That's what we need more of in the regular day to day pvp world.

Thats sounds like an excuse to me, more the point it actually makes it worse this team of people have been pushing dire skill updates for ages now.

It seems like they have no real grasp or clue what happening inside the game they payed to balance, pvp'ers scream at pve'ers to stay out of balance discussions because they dont have a clue yet alot of pve'er's have put forward more constructive skill balances then the balance team have implemented in balance updates.

If i ever see and game with an competeive side to it and izzy or one of these other people have got anything to do with it, i know to stay the hell away from it.

Now that Anet are bringing in abit more money can the player base expect more better skill balancing?

My biggest beef has never been with Izzy on this one.

In every other PvP game I can think of there is a member of the community team who's job is to aggregate and summarize balance feedback for the design team. They can do this more effectively than a designer because they know the community. They know the trolls, the people who play 24/7, the people who are prone to stupidity... etc.

Guild Wars has never had this (thanks to a terrible precedent set by Gaile Gray of ignoring PvP feedback and making Izzy do it himsefl), and one of my biggest worries is how seriously they take it. As important as it is to have a skill balancer who understands and plays competitive PvP, they also need a community team member who 'gets it' and takes part.

This is even more urgent when you consider the effort they are putting in to make Guild Wars 2 even more of a successful PvP game. If they actually have learned from their mistakes, and GW2 is as awesome as it could be, I think they might be surprised by a PvP community developing that was far bigger than they planned for.

I just hope it doesn't leave them floundering and unable to fully support it, like the release of Guild Wars.

I'm not convinced they have learned from their mistakes and I'm not convinced the PvP community will be very big. But perhaps you are more optimistic than I am in this company.

UAX at the start, fewer skills with the skills serving clear purposes, Izzy's already said adding tons of new professions was a mistake, less game modes to not spread out the community so much, etc. It sounds like they have to me based on what we already know.

Good thread JR.

fewer skills will be a mistakes. IMHO, because this is what guild wars is base on in the first place, lots of skills. that aside.

lessons learnt: NO MICROTRANSACTION PLEASE, THANK YOU.

We're not talking about having 50 skills in the whole game. We are talking about not having THOUSANDS. Imagine trying to balance skills knowing that there is a good chance that your change will affects hundreds of skills possibly causing overpowered combinations.

Having less skills will be easier.

yeap, like WOW, Requiem, and every other mmorpg out there

Lession one:

AFTER initially launching your "Warrior" class, which EVERY game has, DON'T introduce:

"The Warrior With Daggers"
"The Warrior with Mending"
"The Warrior with Aegis"

classes. They merely screw up your "triangle" of succes...

Also, hire some more people to balance the skills. Guild Wars is BASED ON the 8 skills every party member has on it's bar, hence it can be said Skill Balance is the most important aspect of the game. (PvP-wise)

Are you sure about that? How do you know its not like half UAX (or just the skills) and you have to purchase the weapons/armors etc? We don't know this, especially considering Anet's recently found source of income that is microtransactions.

That Izzy designed? Pardon me if I'm not convinced. Not to mention fewer skills is a bad thing to many people. But even if it is a good thing, what happens when new skills are introduced? (Which is inevitable).

And he has no power to change it. He will also have no power to change it in 2. Quite honestly why should we believe anything Izzy says? He has expressed a lot of things that did not happen in the game. It is either he means well and can't do what he wants because of higher ups, or he means bad and puts it into the game. It can't be neither, and it won't be neither in 2.

Because more of the game modes will be for PvE. Perhaps GW2 will have a thriving new PvP community, but counting on the current community will do nothing as it is dwindling due to so many people quiitting because of Anet.

Its fine there is some optimism, but I am just not convinced. I simply go by the evidence on what Anet has done (and is still doing) in GW1. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If you want a recent example, look at the sorely needed skill update and what was put as priority over it. I suppose I am the eternal pessimist.

it's already been confirmed that GW2 will have less skills. to make up for that, skills will become more "situational", as in, a skill might behave differently if you are standing or jumping/crouching/fallingdown etc.

Which is pretty dangerous as it means unprecedented amount of bar compression.

I expect the fundamentals of GW2 to be so different that this kind of comparison is meaningless. There will be completely new mechanics to work with that will be built around.

Currently stuff like [distracting shot] dominates because it's so damn versatile at shutting everything down. GW2 would benefit from having similarly versatile counters that aren't so ping dependent.