User talk:Auron/Inexperience

I've played extensive HA, my opinions are worth something Auron! -- scourge 07:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

auron ar eliteist end meen D: --Cancer Angel 08:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've mastered Random Arenas, I think my opinion should carry some weight. Have you ever gotten a 63 win streak from RA? I DOUBT THAT VERY MUCH AURON! Misery 11:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My record's like 45 wins with cerk and squish. -Auron 12:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm the AB Master, MY OpINIOn MATTErS!! On a serious note: Do people who obs a lot, agree with a lot of the more competitive players on balancing issues, but don't/can't play competitively themselves (AKA: Me) turn out to be giant hypocrites when talking about balance? Because, if so, I'll just start being a "WS-is-balanced" tard, at least I'll be a little consistent. --Riddle 12:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're hypocrites. It's hard to find balance from obs alone, which, IMO, is one of izzy's huge problems (yeah, you have an account just to obs games - that's nice, but do you play in them?). However, it's impossible to tell what is balanced if you never play or obs.

If you see a derv with WS wade into an enemy team and deep wound multiple targets every three seconds, you know something is wrong. If you see the team 3-2-1 spike every 10 seconds and get a kill each time, you know something is wrong. That simply is not balanced. Even if you can't figure out why it is imbalanced, just knowing that something is wrong is often good enough. -Auron 13:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Auron, you have the right to be elitist, you know what you're on about, you've earned that. Too bad no-one ever listens to any of us, because of being completely outnumbered ten thousand to one. However, WS isn't insanely imbalanced. It's overpowered, but it can at least be protted against and RCed, unlike some stupid shit. Napalm Flame 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blood magic is bad, I tried it in RA and I didn't get any glad points, it needs a buff if anything. Maybe don't increase the life steal but add some shadow damage or something on top so it at least gets some kills. Misery 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Napalm Flame 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"It's overpowered, but it can at least be protted against and RCed" That's the sort of argument that keeps it OP. --Riddle 05:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

AT LEAST ITS NOT BSPIKE Napalm Flame 04:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

lols, epic post. i think im gonna have to quote your entire page auron. btw, wounding strike isnt OP, its the retarded dev with skill balance powers that needs the nerf. 64.149.24.114 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

auron ar eliteist end meen D: /secunted--Underwood 02:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never played HA, GvG, HB, or...anything that matters. I've got no experience. Yet I have at least some idea what I'm talking about, usually. Page does not explain this...! Vili 03:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

HERP DE DERP AURON'S BUTTHURT BECAUSE HE LOST 68.189.248.104 09:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

lol u r funny gai -Auron 10:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read all of Auron's 'rants' and I have yet to find one that I disagree with. This is coming from someone that is 95% PvEr with minimal PvP experience other than reading posts from intelligent players and obs b.r // talk 10:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's because you're too inexperienced. Nah, just kidding. ^^ 145.94.74.23 08:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fear the power of idiots in large numbers. Fear it. NOW. In theory, a smart person can tell things without experience, though. I have a total of 3 fame and I can still tell that Wounding Strike is too powerful. =\ I wonder what guild wars would be like if updates were based on RA? That would be kinda funny actually... Invincible Rogue 02:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since GW is entirely calculatable and predictable, you don't really HAVE to play GvGs as long as you have the skill to analyse these things, although it's always useful of course. Just wanting to point that out. Xhata 13:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, for two reasons. Firstly, no, Guild Wars isn't entirely predictable. Entire metas change because Guild Wars isn't predictable. For example, signet of judgment, smite condi, reversal of damage, strength of honor, rend enchantments and heroes have existed for a very long time. Yet nobody thought to use them all together until very recently. Yes, they would have been completely broken 2 or w/e years ago when Nightfall came out, but even though they existed on paper, nobody realized how overpowered they all were until it was tried in-game. Basically, anyone who theorycrafted without playing would never have come up with that build, simply because they lacked in-game knowledge of how things work.

Second, you can't really "know" how broken some things are unless you see them run. Pod is a good example. On paper, it's elite, requires a heavy spec, and is 10 energy, so it seems balanced. But in reality, people run it with rend and rip on top of hero smites, so a single hero can keep three eles without attunes or two monks without channeling. Only when you see that do you realize "oh shit, that was a bad idea for Pod."

Sort of on the same note, lack of actual playing experience leads to people theory crafting in fantasyland. They make assumptions about the game that are completely wrong - "wounding strike is balanced because of aegis/guardian/price of failure/bsurge/clumsiness/ineptitude" yet they never realize that the presence of counters doesn't mean a damn thing, since of course the dervish's team isn't going to let you sit there and put aegis up all day. Those people are too focused on a child's game of counter X with another thing that is completely useless except against X. The game doesn't work like that. You have to be able to bring a balanced build in and stand a reasonable chance of winning without speccing against any specific opponents, because you simply can't do it. You can't spec against hexes, heroway, 5+ physicals, rspike, casterspike, and defenseball all at once. It is ANet's job to balance the game sufficiently enough so that your skill as a player, not the skills on your bar, is all you need to achieve victory.

To summarize... no. Just looking at skills really isn't enough to be able to really know about balance. -Auron 15:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you still playing GW?? Dump that shit! -- scourge 08:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not? -Auron 09:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

<_< >_> Just checking... -- scourge 04:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that if you observe GvG often, follow the trends in the meta, and follow up on the condition of high end PvP in general, you'd have a pretty good idea of what balance is without actually doing it right. You made provisions for that in the page, so +cookies for you. So here's my nubcake take on balance. In general, the more I play, the more I come to believe that GW fails at balance. Anet does not seem to have a concept of what is fun for PvP or where they want the happy medium of gameplay strategy to be at, with their constant shifting of the meta; I wish they could formulate a consistent, fun, and balanced meta and focus on that instead of shifting it.

It seems they just do not know where they want the meta to be. At one point the game might have been more or less fun to play but with the introduction of 4 new classes and countless broken, power creeping skills, mixed with countless changes to all skills, the original concept has likely been lost and will not likely be found again. I realize this has probably been stated before by people much more experienced than I and more eloquently, but that's what I've seemed to gather from my limited experience. And TF2 > GW as you say. 68.51.95.206 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the inexperience argument apply to people commenting on game design and balance when they are inexperienced in designing and balancing a game? 58.110.89.46 21:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inexperienced

What would happen if ANet unnerfed all the overpowered builds they have nerfed over the years? The inexperienced fanatsyland thought behind that is that in a game that affords so many combinations, any dominant strategy ought to have another strategy that can hold its own against it without being specialized as a counter, and it's just hard to find. Thoughts? --mendel 21:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, because all the broken builds of 3 years ago aren't nearly as powerful as the ones in existence today, excepting the bugged builds. ~Shard 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Missed One~>Sins WDB 07:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This and that? 82.75.192.76 20:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I...

...Feel your pain. - -Lena talk