User talk:Shard/GWBalance

I remember having discussions with you comparing rits and monks shard :P, but anyways to misery... "The least gimmicky application of ritualists I have seen to date is a support healer that buffs melee using Restoration/Channeling. Spawning Power is largely underpowered as a primary attribute and Communing is a joke. The underpoweredness of Spawning Power and the ridiculousness of Soul Reaping in certain areas of the game is the reason why the only "ritualist healers" are N/Rts"I need to throw in a word if your going to talk about rits. First off spawning power is underpowered, but what's your point? You think that soul reaping and its opness makes a necro a better healer? That might be, but it doesn't make it a viable choice or better at being the ritualist profession. As for communing being a joke, you've never found any appreciation for cracked armor, a 1000%+ upkeep spike killer, and 10% opponent move speed have you? Rit's are most effective at being mediocre and what makes them strong is that splits need to occur and that's where their mediocrity is most effective. Anyway their function is general support be that Resto/Channeling, Resto/Communing, Resto/Shadow Arts, or whatever and support is not gimmicky as you say it's an important aspect of combat in GW.~>Sins WDB 01:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what something "can be." What matters is how people actually run them. People only run gimmicky rits, so rits are gimmicky. ~Shard 08:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I kind of wtf'd many times during your response. Soul reaping does make a necromancer a better healer than a ritualist. Ritualist primaries have slightly longer weapon spell durations and a few more points of health on each healing spell, N/Rts have infinite energy. Infinite energy is a bigger advantage and makes N/Rts more effective healers than ritualist primaries. Sundering Weapon isn't actually in the Communing line at all, it's unlinked because you don't actually have to spec anything into it at all to make it effective in a spike build. Brutal Weapon is only used in Brutal Glass Arrows r-spiking, a gimmick. Vital Weapon is the last viable communing skill and not a reason to call the line anything but underpowered (and is still an irremovable buff). The only thing that makes ritualists viable are overpowered skills and this has always been the case. I also think you need to look up mediocrity, I don't see how being effective at being mediocre is an advantage in any situation. I'll get back to Shard in a while, you were much easier to respond to. Misery 09:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

being effective at being mediocre. ~Shard 09:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ok, as for the argument that a monk has to spec 13 Divine Favour to make Orison of Healing as good as Mend Body and Soul, that is absolute bunk. You are not speccing Divine Favour to make Orison of Healing comparable to MBaS, you are speccing Divine Favour to make every single spell on your bar heal for about 30 health every time you do anything. Most Divine Favour skills are not worth a skill slot and most monk bars don't have any Divine Favour skills at all, yet every decent monk has a significant amount of their attribute points spent on Divine Favour. This is a very powerful effect and worth the attribute spending. It is the most important thing that actually makes monk primary healers superior to ritualist primary healers, otherwise you would see ritualists in backlines or /Mo healers. You cannot ignore Divine Favour in balance calculations or you will break your own first rule of game balance, if a staple monk healing spell and a staple ritualist healing spell (although direct comparison is difficult because this theoretical staple ritualist spell doesn't exist) had the exact same statistics, the monk healing spell would be superior in every situation because in every situation where you take the monk healing spell your character will have Divine Favour. I'm not going to comment on the idea of taking Orison of Healing or MBaS alone on a /Rt or /Mo as a self heal/split support because that is pretty terrible.

As for There is no nonelite monk skill that even comes close to MBnS in terms of healing. The only one that you could argue is Dwayna's Kiss, and its healing is conditional., what about Patient Spirit and Gift of Health? Yes, both of these skills have downsides, why? Because of the effect of Divine Favour which cannot be ignored in balance decisions. Both of those skills see play, Patient Spirit a lot more often than GoH, Orison never sees play because it is underpowered. Both of those skills were live in game at the point that you wrote that article. I've already mentioned what skill I think MBaS should be balanced against, Dismiss Condition. They both have similar effects and a conditional nature. As such MBaS could use an adjustment, you could knock the numbers down a little when you change the condition but it doesn't actually matter, when you take account for Divine Favour, which you have to do because it exists in every instance where Dismiss Condition is used, they actually heal for pretty similar amounts and the conditional on MBaS is actually harder to meet than the conditional on Dismiss Condition because spirits are terrible and you don't actually want to take them unless you are abusing them. Orison of Healing is underpowered with the current state of game balance, you might as well claim Glyph of Lesser Energy is overpowered because it is so much better than Divine Spirit.

As for the claim Both attributes are popular and fulfill the same tasks, so there's no "one's in a bad attribute" argument. I would argue that Restoration is a much worse attribute than Healing Prayers for the simple reason that the elites in the Healing Prayers attribute are so much better than the elites in the Restoration attribute coupled with the fact that taking Healing Prayers gives you access to Protection Prayers, another attribute line to help you do your job, while Restoration only gives you access to Channeling Magic. This is also coupled with the fact that Healing Prayers can be boosted by Divine Favour while (excluding the duration of WoW and Weapon of Shadow) Restoration spells can not be boosted at all. As such Healing Prayers spells have to be somewhat weaker in direct comparison with Restoration spells to compensate for these effects. You cannot ignore these effects in your model or you will come to incorrect conclusions. I will repeat myself here for emphasis, there is no basis for ignoring the effect of Divine Favour.

Now, you made no comment on anything else I have said, does that mean that you concede those points or that you were simply politely waiting until I had finished making my complete case to make sure you understood my position? Misery 10:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll make this short and simple. Why bother playing the game if you have so many complaints and QQ about it all the time? In fact, why bother staying around this wiki. Chuck the game out the bin and forget about it. --kaheiyeh 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I have stopped playing the game at the moment. Secondly, because as flawed as Guild Wars is, it is still one of the best games in existence. I stay around this wiki because I have significant downtime at work and this wiki can amuse me at times.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I remember a flaw in the main article you might want to correct, you stated that calculus would be required to work out the maximum damage in a single packet, but that is incorrect. All damage intervals are capped in this game so you can actually relatively easily calculate the maximum damage of each skill but calculating the damage of each skill with every possible buff done by a level twenty against a level one wearing no armor who is under the effects of Frenzy while activating Healing Signet. I suspect it will be Decapitate with a Conjure and Strength of Honour. Considering the effects of armor and level on non-armor ignoring damage it could also be from a spell in the fire magic line, but it's somewhat irrelevant and the maximum damage probably shouldn't even be considered because it is an unrealistic situation. The average effect of skills like Reversal of Fortune shouldn't be calculated from the average of the maximum range of the skill, but rather from a measured average of the size of damage packets people take while affected by the spell as that average is more relevant to actual effect. Misery 10:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Misery, for the records. I don't think it would be impossible to make a good mathematic model in which to base skill balance, but I think it would be too complex for a game like Guild Wars, in which there are so many variables. IMO, we could replace the mathematic model with extensive testing of the game by people who really know what they're doing, leading to a favorable (if not perfect, at least far better than the current state of things) outcome. This is a nice discussion, good to see such thoughtful arguments on both sides. Erasculio 11:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Misery, I directed that comment mainly at Shard; not you. --kaheiyeh 11:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok fuck you guys i'm not reading those walls of text anyway prot > healing prot + healing > n/rt especially with extra support misery is right about that end of the story you guys proly already came to that conclusion but w/e Lilondra *gale* 12:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok fuck you guys i'm not reading those walls of text My goals are achieved. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Misery (talk). 13:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Leet domages from Rodgort's Invocation. It can get higher than that, but we were aiming for 1,337 exactly. Of course, you can get much bigger damage with the ballista, but that's hardly anything to base skill balance on. Decapitate with JI, SoH, and Conjure vs. a Hellhound using Frenzy only gets to... somewhere in the hundreds, iirc. Vili 13:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Misery--Shard wanted me to tell you "re-read what he said/wrote" and that he will be back to reply to you when his ban is up on the 18th, he says "has a lot to say in response" and that he might post on his PvX.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 01:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Misery: I remember a flaw in the main article you might want to correct, you stated that calculus would be required to work out the maximum damage in a single packet, but that is incorrect. All damage intervals are capped in this game so you can actually relatively easily calculate the maximum damage of each skill but calculating the damage of each skill with every possible buff done by a level twenty against a level one wearing no armor who is under the effects of Frenzy while activating Healing Signet. . . the maximum damage probably shouldn't even be considered because it is an unrealistic situation. The average effect of skills like Reversal of Fortune shouldn't be calculated from the average of the maximum range of the skill, but rather from a measured average of the size of damage packets people take while affected by the spell as that average is more relevant to actual effect.

You are part right. Integrals, in short, let you add up any number of things (even an infinite number of things) without having to do each case separately. If you would like to calculate the minimum, maximum, and average damage of each skill in the game one at a time, be my guest, I will include your name at the bottom of my page. However, that's unrealistic, and frankly, nobody cares. Calculating RoF's power levels would be better the way you said it, but again, that would take a lot of work, and yes, the number would be smaller than 80 as the article says, because the damage bell curve is thicker at the left side (ie much more things in the game do <40 damage than >40).

And now for the points you're wrong about:

as for the argument that a monk has to spec 13 Divine Favour to make Orison of Healing as good as Mend Body and Soul, that is absolute bunk. You are not speccing Divine Favour to make Orison of Healing comparable to MBaS, you are speccing Divine Favour to make every single spell on your bar heal for about 30 health every time you do anything.

And rits are not speccing attributes to achieve the same result. (Divine Favor + monk heals) == (Rit heals) ∴ (Monk Heals < Rit Heals). In case you were wondering, that's my argument. Also, it's valid, so if you disagree, you're wrong. NEXT!

I would argue that Restoration is a much worse attribute than Healing Prayers for the simple reason that the elites in the Healing Prayers attribute are so much better than the elites in the Restoration attribute coupled with. . . Healing Prayers gives you access to Protection Prayers, another attribute line to help you do your job, while Restoration only gives you access to Channeling Magic.

So you're saying MBnS is weaker than Orison because WoH is better than both of them? Don't make me look up what that fallacy is called. For now I'll call it "Fallacy of has nothing to do with the argument." NEXT!

Healing Prayers can be boosted by Divine Favour while Restoration spells can not be boosted at all.

Ok you didn't get it last time so I'll use another example. Eles have access to Glyph of Sacrifice, a skill which lets them cast a spell (almost) instantly. Monks do not have Glyph of Sacrifice. Therefore, Meteor Shower has a shorter cast time than Healing Touch. Obviously, that's a bad argument.

Feel free to keep trying until you get it right.

Sorry it took me so long to respond. Back-to-back pseudobans made me forget this discussion was here. ~Shard 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I like how you claim to logic own me with statements such as "so if you disagree, you're wrong". I may respond later, but I'm wikiing a hell of a lot less. Misery 06:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even that was valid, because if my argument is true, which it is, anyone who opposes it must me wrong. I kind of did that in anticipation that you would say what you did. I like you misery, you don't back down and resort to insults/ignorance when you're counterargued, I respect that. ~Shard 08:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You should argue with more reality and less bullshit, shard. Rit heals, in theoryland and theoryland only, are better than monk heals. Unfortunately, reality comes with elite skills - and rit elites are absolute trash compared to monk elites (which misery pointed out). On that note, bringing elite skills into the discussion is no less flawed than comparing Orison to MBS is to begin with - three years of power creep make those two a silly ass pick. I mean, let's apply your logic and selection to another scenario - wounding strike and axe twist. Of course wounding strike is better (even pre-buff), but that still doesn't make dervishes better at killing things than warriors. All the top guilds run two warriors, even though the numbers are in favor of the derv in the comparison of good dervish skill vs bad and unused warrior skill.

In reality, people run monks. Monks have prots, hex removal, reliable condi removal, and the ability to use a secondary for emanagement. They are simply superior, even if insert-shitty-and-unused-monk-skill-here is weaker than insert-less-shitty-rit-skill-only-used-in-gimmicks-here. If you wanted an honest comparison, you should have compared MBS to dismiss as misery said - they were both added in the same campaign, so one isn't 3 years of power creep ahead of the other. Either way, the huge benefit from divine healing (a heal that triggers every time a monk sneezes on a teammate) outweighs the raw numbers on rit heals, especially since many of those (spirit light, transfer, mbs) are incredibly conditional and thus are pieces of shit in a dynamic environment (i.e., rit healers can't split to defend a base without spending precious time setting spirits up, which would get interrupted most of the time anyway).

In the end, we call it "game balance." Rit spells heal for more, but lack the versatility of monk lines and the thousands of free HP healed with divine favor. Honestly, rits got hosed in terms of being pure healers - ANet's intent was to introduce another class that could backline instead of monks, but because their skills were so dependent on spirits (which kept getting nerfed), they just kept getting worse and worse. Rits are balls in terms of energy management, too - there's basically no non-elite worth bringing from the entire class to manage energy, and since rits have to sacrifice their secondary for utility skills, they're up a creek for energy. Monks have everything they need to support their team in the monk line, so they're free to spec their secondary for energy or self protection. All these things really make monks superior - which is what they are, regardless of how shitty orison is compared to mend body and soul.

If you're trying to prove that rits are better than monks, you've gotta be ready to deal with circumstances outside of your pitched comparison. Pure numbers mean shit compared to the increased utility that monks bring - but you know, divine favor makes the numbers not as pitched as you seem to think they are. Like misery said, monks were balanced to have divine favor specced. Rits were balanced to have more powerful base heals because they don't have divine favor at all. That's simple game balance, not imbalance. Imagine how stupid monks would be if they had rit-power heals on top of divine favor? Rits wouldn't begin to compare with them. At least now, rits can compare to them on paper, even if they're absolute trash in real play.

To summarize, just in case you tldr...

• "And rits are not speccing attributes to achieve the same result. (Divine Favor + monk heals) == (Rit heals) ∴ (Monk Heals < Rit Heals). In case you were wondering, that's my argument."

As I said, this is simple game balance. Every monk in the game specs divine favor, even without any divine favor skills, simply because you heal literally thousands of HP per match. You can't pretend that a little bit of extra healpower on the rit skills makes up for that, let alone puts them ahead of monks. Even if it puts them ahead in terms of pure healing-per-second, which I honestly doubt, rits are still leagues behind on utility, energy management, and being able to maintain effective heals while moving with your team.

• Also, it's valid, so if you disagree, you're wrong. NEXT!

i lol'd. good joke. if your premise is wrong, your entire argument is wrong.

• So you're saying MBnS is weaker than Orison because WoH is better than both of them? Don't make me look up what that fallacy is called. For now I'll call it "Fallacy of has nothing to do with the argument." NEXT!

No, I'm saying (along with Misery) that comparing MBS to orison is stupid as hell. On top of it being stupid as hell, WoH exists and is better than everything rits have, including their elites (which counters your argument that rit heals are > monk heals). On top of WoH being better than everything rits have, Divine Favor. NEXT! (P.S., it's called a red herring, but since your logic thus far has been less than spectacular, we'll pretend you aren't trying to use it either).

• some shit about meteor shower

You missed his point more than he missed yours. He's not talking about skills boosting effectiveness, he's talking about primary attributes. Divine favor can boost healing; to be more accurate, divine favor does boost healing prayers (along with everything else they cast), since every monk in Guild Wars has divine favor specced. No matter how much rits want to boost their resto prayers, they can't. No skills do it, no attributes do it, and since half the resto skills are conditional to begin with, they're often operating at half efficiency regardless of boosts. (mis correct me if I'm wrong, this is the point I'm least sure on)

for serious tldr, reality >>>> theoryland crap -Auron >8< 09:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All monk spells that target allies/party heal an extra amount depending on the amount of points specced into divine favour. Omitting smiters for this illustration, monks are relied on preserving and restoring party health, thus spells used by monks tend to and should capitalize on their primary attribute to restore as much health as efficiently as possible.

Eles have access to Glyph of Sacrifice, a skill which lets them cast a spell (almost) instantly. Monks do not have Glyph of Sacrifice. Therefore, Meteor Shower has a shorter cast time than Healing Touch.

As you said, this is a bad argument, but in ways more than one. You meant to illustrate the argument that having a supplement to an otherwise weaker skill doesn't bring it on par with an otherwise stronger skill.

However, you fail to factor in the fact that this supplement(divine favor) is universal, hence you settle for a narrow-minded argument comparing the base power of each skill as a factor of whether a skill is balanced or not, rather than factoring the combination of EIGHT skills, and how wisely you add your attributes, how practical each skill is in different situations etc. Yes, you can argue MBaS is more powerful than orison; numbers-wise it is pretty clear which is the stronger skill on the surface, but it is merely superficial.

Conclusion:Misery's argument is that comparing the base power level of similar-acting skills do not necessarily point out true balance or lack thereof, rather than simply arguing that orison is not inferior to MBaS.

For a more detailed explanation, read Auron. I rest my case even if you do not understand.

Pika Fan 10:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty happy with what others have said, so I'll just add a couple of points:

About the whole Meteor Shower/Glyph Sac thing, firstly, you forgot to take into account the casting time and aftercast of Glyph Sac, secondly, it's more like if Glyph Sac functioned like Comfort Animal and just having it on your bar applied it to every single spell, then yes, an ele with Glyph Sac would effectively cast every spell faster than Healing Touch. But you see that's not how things work so your comparison was almost completely invalid. As has been pointed out, Divine Favor applies to every cast and every monk specs it, aside from nHway smiters. To argue from any other point ignores reality.

A quick note on the MBaS thing, your analysis suggests that Orison is balanced (because you define it as such) and in comparison MBaS is overpowered. That is the outcome of your model and it is a conclusion I would disagree with. I would say experimental evidence (obs mode in this case) disagrees with the predictions of your model, invalidating the model, suggesting errors in your original premise. This is how theory/experimental science work, a model is proposed then tested against experiment to see if it fits, if it fits it is used to attempt to predict effects that have not yet been observed, if it doesn't fit the original assumptions of the model are investigated/adjusted or the model is discarded as useless. Obs mode would suggest that Orison is underpowered and unused, even with high Divine Favour and Healer's Boon, while MBaS has a conditional nature that only makes it useful in very specific builds and almost useless under any other situation, if your model showed that it might have some validity, but clearly you are missing some variables or have some incorrect assumptions. Feel free to attempt to interpret experimental results in another manner, but I don't see a valid basis to call Orison balanced and MBaS overpowered in the current metagame. Auron was close enough about my comments on the subject of Divine Favour boosting Healing Prayers/everything monk related.

I also want to add some comments on the direct comparison of skills, for the most part, it's a useless endeavour. For red bar skills, which is what these are, at most you are only going to want to take 2-3 on your bar at any one time, therefore it is only relevant to compare say... the top 8 red bar skills from both professions as you are never ever going to take any other red bar skill from either profession on your skill bar ever. I say top 8 rather than top 3 because some will be better in different circumstances such as Soothing Memories being better on a flagger, MBaS being better in a spirit spam team with Ritualist backline. MBaS is probably in the top 8 for ritualist red bar skills while Orison is so bad you wouldn't even take it on a HB monk who usually takes a ridiculous amount of red bar. I've explained earlier why I believe this is the case and why it has to be the case for vanilla skills such as Orison and Flare.

As for the comments about wrong because you are right, that is based on the flawed assumption that you are definitely correct. I don't assume to be correct, feel free to attempt to refute any of my points. You'll find it works better at convincing people than claiming to be right and therefore concluding that they are wrong. As for the comments about me not resorting to insults, I usually only resort to that kind of behaviour if I am irritated by someone's actions and want to bait them into breaking policies so that they get banned, but I've stopped watching RC so I don't really care what you do as long as other people don't bug me about it and you tend to be doing less things that irritate me anyway. Misery 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bunny bunny bunny bunny....owait....Pika Fan 12:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

While people have brought up many good points, especially Auron, the reality of this article is that it is not based in reality. Not exactly 90% of gvg teams run restore condition. Not exactly 5% of teams run bloodspike in tombs. These are things that have to be guessed, which is why it will never be a perfect system. This has already been stated by others and myself.

This article IS about theorycrafting. Notice how nowhere in the article does it tell you how to actually play the game, or how player skill actually works into the equation. "Mend Body and Soul is better than orison" is valid on this page, but that's not the same as "Monks are better healers than rits," which is also true. Things like Divine Favor and what weapon set you're on make a difference in reality, but this page is not associated with reality, it's only looking at one thing at a time. There are two ways of looking at balance, both of which are necessary. One is application, and one is on paper. This is the latter.

I guess I should add that to the page to make things more clear. Thanks all for the feedback. ~Shard 01:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as you clearly differentiate between "real" balance and "paper" balance, I have no qualms with it.Pika Fan 07:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

My point from the start was that looking at all the skills in vacuum was largely worthless as it's usually the interplay between skills that makes them overpowered, some obvious examples aside such as beta Signet of Ghostly Might. I just think this model is missing far too much information to yield relevant information. I'll grant MBaS is a better skill than Orison, but they are both pretty crappy skills. Also, did you mean to comment out the added disclaimer? Misery 08:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did. I'm going to add more to it. ~Shard 09:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

[1]

Insignias are passive. Skills are not. Does this make a difference? Explain your answer by using examples. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say that it does make a difference. If you have an insignia that gives +10 armor all the time no questions asked (tormentor's, for example -- well, assuming you don't run into holy damage, but that's beside the point, really), it would be more powerful than a skill that gives +10 armor because skills have costs -- even if it's an "always on" skill like Stun on Critical Hit, it still takes up a slot in your bar (though I guess monsters can have more than 8 skills anyway... again, not the point). Furthermore, skill armor does not stack past +24 unless it's multiple skills -- equipment armor boosts stack unless they say otherwise (and as far as I know, they don't). --Jette 05:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes no difference. Assuming you're UAX, insignias either give you +1 energy or +5 health (or multiples). This indicates that, originally, the designers wanted 1 energy to be the equivalent of 5 health. ~Shard 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Supposed Progress

I agree totally with all your points. Current thinking adheres to Chin Ra's Law of MMORPG which states that; 'In order for your MMORPG to become more populated, therefore more successful and lucrative, everything must INCREASE.' I am all for the use of a philosophy but Chin Ra had just been nol'd in PSO when he said that (or something akin). It's a law adopted because there was nothing else available and I'm tired of it. Rather Po's Law; 'An MMORPG is like an open cast mine - seal it up and cover it with meadows.'--Tong2 02:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not so much a law as it is a tendency. When online games with pve release new content, they need to add something for the elite players, like harder areas or higher level enemies. The vast majority of players can't handle that based on how good they are, so the designers add more powerful items, skills, etc (they also make better stuff as reward items). Unfortunately, GW followed this pattern when it didn't have to. ~Shard 06:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Almost perfectly balanced"

>Balance has never been a conscious issue for me - all the games I've played the most until now have all been almost perfectly balanced. Street Fighter, Starcraft, Magic, and DnD to name a few.

I'm kinda shocked by this statement. I think Starcraft did a reasonably good job. I can't really comment on Street Fighter. The others, though?

Magic is very much balanced like Guild Wars. It's got a lot of cards that are more or less designed to suck but distract bad players with big numbers, and a lot of broken unanticipated combos that drive gimmick decks. It's got a lot of fan complaints about "power creep" in expansions. Occasionally the designers just give up on a particular card and ban it from tournament play (kinda like applying a PvP over-nerf, e.g. Smiter's Boon). If you're just comparing GW PvP to Magic, I really can't see how you can say that one game is all that much worse than another (PvE is a whole 'nother can of worms, and it's hard to find an analogous situation in Magic).

D&D is absolutely atrocious as far as game balance goes. There's maybe one edition where the majority of the game's content isn't uselessly underpowered compared to a few mainstay choices. — 130.58 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are looking at DnD differently than I do. Yes, there are some trash classes *cough*sorcerer*cough*, but every class has a limited number of things it can specialize in, and in order to get through a well-designed campaign, you need a little bit of everything. You will find some dungeons where it is impossible for a wizard to get through because he cannot disarm traps or pick locks, or bash something. As a competitive game (which DnD was never meant to be), it would be very imbalanced, but the same can be said for almost any role-playing game.

The difference between broken GW combos and broken MtG combos is that Wizards bans those imbalanced combos the day they see them, where anet will let people abuse it for 8 months to three years before making it slightly less broken without actually fixing it. In addition, Guild Wars only has about 400 pvp skills, among those about 20 are severely overpowered. MtG has the same number of severely overpowered cards, but has a total card pool 250 times larger than GW. Simply put, Wizards knows how to balance a game, so it's very rare they ever have to fix anything. The last time they created something game breaking was four years ago when Skullclamp and artifact lands came out.

I don't like the power creep MtG has had since Time Spiral, but my friends who still play tell me that tournaments are still very competitive, and the cards I've looked at in the new sets are only slightly more powerful than cards in older sets. ~Shard 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

D&D: perfectly balanced. --71.56.252.139 01:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How gimped are you until you gain the ability to take those prestige classes? Also, that's something I wouldn't know much about, since I've only played with core rules. ~Shard 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Poor example. D&D 3rd Edition wasn't imbalanced because you could willfully misread a bunch of splats to force an infinite power combo. That's the kind of error that's so obviously a flat-out "bug" that people can just handwave it away in play, just like Signet of Whatever causing enemy players to explode was the kind of ridiculous show-stopper that it could be found, abused, and then fixed pretty much immediately. D&D 3rd Edition was imbalanced because the underlying game mechanics -- what a level meant, how saves grew, what characters could buy with their money -- were skewed in a way that made most choices, including a lot of the iconic ones that D&D's flavor and culture of play told you you were supposed to make, poor ones. — 130.58 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of content in Guild Wars requires a mix of classes, too. Sure, sometimes you can just pile a bunch of the same class into a team and succeed, but that's no different from being able to cake-walk your way through D&D with a party of clerics or wizards (depending on the edition).

I think, fundamentally, the kind of "niche protection" that D&D thievery represent is a poor approach to game balance and game design: all you're doing is split the game into several mini-games and telling each player to pick one to play. That's even worse than "You need a warrior to tank, some kind of caster to nuke, and a monk to make red bars go up" -- it's like "Okay, you need a fighter, a wizard, and a cleric; oh, and occasionally we'll take out a break from that and pull out a d100 and the thief player will roll stuff". Of course, in 3rd Edition, the rogue could actually fight okay but the wizard could fill in for the rogue with magic (without sacrificing spell slots -- the lost money for a few scrolls is nothing compared to the money lost equipping the rogue). And, similarly, 3rd Edition makes the fighter, the class set apart to be the iconic front-liner, inferior to classes designed to do other stuff (e.g. clerics) at fulfilling its central role. 3rd Edition's math was broken way harder than Guild Wars', too: the GW attribute problem is a joke compared to the game's utter failure to make a "level" a discrete unit of power. Designing classes that straight-up penalized you for keeping the one class til 20 was a pretty huge mistake, too.

(Pre-3rd-Edition D&D's just too much of a mess in this department to even contemplate its "balance". At best, you could say "not applicable".) — 130.58 (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

DnD is a very different type of game than GW is. DnD is a role-playing game, and GW is a fighting game. If you looked at DnD as a fighting game, then it's terrible. There are many classes that are worse than other classes in every way, and there are some classes that are very overpowered in terms of damage or combat ability. Like I said, it's not a competitive game, it's a role-playing game. It's balanced that way. Unless your DM is a maniac, he makes the game fun and hopefully discourages pew-pew builds that have no role-play aspect. DnD and GW both have identical character archetypes, but in GW, all of them are combat oriented. This is not true for DnD. ~Shard 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, it seems like y'all mostly know 3rd Edition. Let's talk about 3rd Edition.

First off, though: competitive balance isn't the only thing that matters. Think about Guild Wars PvE. When some classes or builds greatly outclass everything else, this horribly limits the game and punishes any player whose character can't easily fit into the dominant party build. Simply put, if your class sucks for PvE, nobody wants to play with you, and that sucks.

Yes, D&D is an RPG. D&D is also a combat-oriented game. The 3rd Edition redesign and the 4th Edition redesign were both based on the assumption that players like to roleplay killing stuff within a framework of consistent, "game-like" tactical rules. Both games are trying to be thorough so that fighting doesn't require constant handwaving on the part of the GM; that's why they provide you rules for all sorts of modifiers and special actions and try to offer a coherent standard for how the GM can extend those rules with on-the-fly rulings.

The majority of every 3rd and 4th Edition core book deals with combat. In its advice section on how to run a "deep-immersion storytelling" game with less fighting, the 3rd Edition DMG says to use the rules less. So, if you look at the part of the game that the rules are actually trying to cover thoroughly and conclude that they do a crappy job, how can you then turn around and say, "Oh, okay, combat balance doesn't matter because it's a roleplaying game"? If tactical combat really didn't matter, you'd use a system that didn't turn every action sequence into an hour-long centerpiece scene full of tricky tactical choices, perhaps?

Let's look at "balance" outside of combat, too. When you're not fighting stuff, the mechanics that have the most impact on play are skills and ("utility") spells. Note that these mechanics are still task-oriented: you use them to do stuff like climb a wall, open a lock, make a sword, sing a song, lie to someone, or learn some piece of information that'll help you accomplish something else -- D&D generally doesn't believe in having any mechanics that impact the "how my character feels" kind of roleplaying, that's supposed to be the domain of freeform-ish play. Note also that, per its specialist model, D&D more or less rewards having one character handle the situation-appropriate skill while everyone else tries to "aid another" or just sits on the sidelines. In 3rd Edition, it's harder to involve the whole party in a skill-check situation than it is to involve them all in fighting (this is the issue that 4th's "skill challenge" is supposed to remedy). In 3rd Edition, rogues, bards, and wizards absolutely dominate in out-of-combat situations (with druids or rangers being able to do a lot in the wilderness, too). Whether thanks to useful spells or tons of skill points (or both), these characters are simply more useful and more capable than others. Like the fighter. The fighter starts with 2 skill points per level, doesn't have access to many of the more interest "class skills", and generally can't afford to pile his best stat into Int. Apparently, if you want to get stuff done outside of combat, don't play a fighter.

What about "roleplaying" ephemera? "Fluff" is important, to be sure, but I don't really think that there's anything about -- oh, let's say -- the fighter that makes it stand out as a more interesting character choice than one of the other classes that can get more stuff done. And, heck, many fighter "character concepts" can be turned into cleric ones by just throwing in some deeply-held religious beliefs. And then you can go kick more ass in combat and be a bigger hero than you would if you were just a fighter.

As I said above, these issues aren't like Pun-Pun, either. Sure, most groups can detect clear abuse and fix it reasonably well. It's the subtler stuff that's rooted in the very heart of the system that they don't know how to fix, because they're not professional game designers and the game's professional designers couldn't even figure some of this stuff out when they wrote it.

So, where's the "almost perfectly balanced" gameplay? — 130.58 (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) D&D is entirely "not applicable" in terms of balance because it's a role-playing game. It depends on your play style, obviously, but I've met very few people who play it like they do the vidja. We have a word for people who try to play it in a competitive manner -- they're called munchkins. The cool part about D&D is that you have a pretty cool guy called the GM who can curbstomp bullshit even faster than Wizards can. No programming involved, just a simple, easy "shut the fuck up." It'd be like having a referee with Base Defense who stands at the altar/flagstand autokilling anybody with a stupid gimmick. You should see what I do to people who try to use a locate city nuke.

Magic is imbalanced as all hell if you're playing Vintage, or simply without rules, because you will run across the occasional asshat who has a Memory Jar deck or some massive mana generation technique that fuels a descendant of channelball. But the other tournament formats are usually great, and if you cut out the utterly broken cards like the P9 and garbage such as Tolarian Academy, Vintage is actually quite fun. Furthermore, unlike most GW players, Magic players are usually nice. Or, if not nice, then not complete dickheads. I think it has something to do with them being offline -- not being anonymous is part of it, but at the same time, I think it's also the inherent effect of knowing your opponent is sitting right across from you, and if you make an ass of yourself calling him a faggot when he loses, you will get your ass kicked. IRL trolling, as it turns out, is pretty dangerous. --Jette 04:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Vintage can be pretty bad, especially considering that many of the restricted cards, if drawn, can cause you to win the game on their own. Luckily, none of my friends own P9 cards, so we play casually and always have fun. I'm a little disappointed about how complex they've made Magic in the last year. I stopped playing after Time Spiral, when things started getting really complicated. However, I do agree with all the combat changes they just made (ghostblocking was lame). ~Shard 04:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I stopped playing after the Invasion block. It feels different these days, but I've heard some of the recent sets were really good. I should probably pick up a spoiler for Coldsnap just because Ice Age was my favorite "classic" set of all, and since it replaces the abysmal excuse for an expansion they originally used for it called Homelands (ironically, HL was probably my favorite set in terms of flavor & backstory, despite the terrible gameplay). --Jette 05:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Invasion was pretty beast, but Odyssey was amazing. You should have played a little longer for that. The graveyard interaction was very well done. Kamigawa and Ravnica weren't too bad. ~Shard 06:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) 3rd Editions balance failures aren't just a problem with "munchkins".

I ran a 3.5 Eberron game that went to high levels. One of the characters was a dark priestess. Pretty simple, highly coherent idea, really: a kind of martial-arts assassin who practiced a bit of divine magic. She tried to accomplish this character idea by combining rogue, monk, and cleric. It worked out okay initially, making for a pretty fun and shifty character with a cool shtick and parity with everyone else. As we got to higher levels, more encounters started involving enemies that the character couldn't easily strike or who dealt more damage than her small spells could realyl do anything about. She still did a decent job but it was hard for me to really spotlight that character's cool aspects because, game-mechanically, they were weaker than the others'. The non-caster character in the group started out as a perfectly reasonable idea, too, but needed life support in the form of a custom prestige class in order to maintain her role as the bloodthirsty psychotic killer once we hit the teen levels. In other words, I had to do a lot of my own game design work just to manage the spotlight in this game; that tells me the rules themselves weren't pulling their weight.

In another game, a player noticed how cool a wizard was and decided to make a wizard/cleric. Of course, multiclassing spellcasters sucks in 3rd edition. The designers were aware of this issue and there's a prestige class in the DMG (mystic theurge) specifically designed to address the problem. The character still sucked, though. As far as actually accomplishing the party's goals, he was pretty much dead weight -- the single-classed caster could handle all the skills and magic more effectively, and had way more firepower in combat. The character still provided roleplaying opportunities to that player, but there wasn't much he could contribute whenever the group worked together in pursuit of their common long-term goals. Maybe if we played for another five levels the character would've become more useful.

If the game is all about builds and tactics, I'd at least like fewer "traps" -- options that just exist to confuse players who haven't yet "mastered" the rules. Even if you understand how everything works, it's still a pain in the ass because a great "roleplaying" idea can be married to a horrible game mechanic -- like, y'know, the fighter. And if the game really isn't all about builds and tactics and all this fiddly rules stuff, then why is it penalizing the players so hard for making reasonable-sounding but insufficiently min/max-y choices? (And if it's not penalizing the players, it's penalizing the GM by adding more work to smooth out these pointless wrinkles.) — 130.58 (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call on the social-contract differences between GW and Magic, though. That definitely smooths out a lot of MtG issues in play -- if your gimmick is too gimmicky, your friends won't play with you. — 130.58 (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That so? I might check out Odyssey then. I quit more because I didn't have many people left to play with than I was fed up with the game. I've heard the story for Ravnica was good as well, and the multicolor interactions might be interesting.

I will agree wholeheartedly that 3.5 is unbalanced as can be in some ways, and that because it can take a long time to develop a character mechanically but only a few minor mistakes to make that character mechanically unstable, it can be discouraging to play anything "outside the box," especially since from a combat perspective, wizards totally roast everything else in the game after a certain point (this is somewhat diminished in the core books, but still true in some ways). It's not really bad game design by intention, like simple games designed for kids, or by laziness/incompetence/insanity (lolgw), it's that making a game as complex, flexible and interesting as D&D is hard. They're up to 4 editions now (5 if you count 3.5), and there are still kinks to be worked out (on a side note, 4e is a POS imho, but I can understand why some people like it more). Balancing magic is inherently an absolute biotch because mages tend to increase quadratically, whereas fighters and other "normal" professions increase linearly. Either you have to give fighters legendary, herculean feats that basically make them wizards with different fluff, or wizards have to increase in power well beyond what a fighter can possibly be expected to do. Who would want to play a wizard whose only cool ability is that his fireball gets bigger or does more damage as he levels up? Forget that, I'll take my save-or-elses and cool summons over "game balance" any day.

It's interesting that I say that when I'm almost constantly moaning about how bad GW's balance is, and the reason is simple: GW isn't fun if it isn't balanced. D&D can be, and (if your group are not irritating you) is. That's why I play any game, be it a traditional tabletop game like D&D or a competitive online one like GW used to be: to have fun. If your wizard or cleric or what have you is trying to completely steal the spotlight in combat, there are ways for a good DM to circumvent that (for that matter, there are also ways for a bad DM to circumvent it -- lol antimagic shell), and D&D is definitely a game where homebrewing stuff and/or using houserules is a BIG help. D&D players, on average, are smarter than GW players, though, and despite the game being unbalanced almost by definition, have a better concept of balance than players on GW do. I think the requirement of having to read a big-ass 250+ page manual before playing the game helps to filter out the people who aren't smart/dedicated enough to "get it," whatever "it" really is.

As one final note, I've found you can fulfill almost any character concept without any homebrewing by asking the people on some forums out there -- as irritating as a player who actually tries to use pun-pun may be, the people who made him and characters like him can be quite useful in coming up with a mechanical way to represent a character concept effectively. --Jette 07:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I thin my criticism is valid: if the best you can say about it is that it's okay that for it not to be balanced, 3rd Edition is a terribly poor example of how to actually craft a "balanced" game. Looking at it won't help you improve the balance model of a game like Guild Wars at all, whereas you could say that Guild Wars does benefit from a design comparison to a game like Magic or Starcraft.

The huge volume of published splats does allow you to come up with quirky convoluted power-builds for various "character concepts", but I think that ultimately begs the system as a failure, not a success -- you're doing a lot of pointless work to accomplish something very simple. If you tone the tactical combat down, you can replace the whole system with about 40-60 pages of a much more focused design. (The balance failure isn't my main complaint about D&D, by the way.) — 130.58 (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the splatbooks are crappy, tbh. They're usually a decent read and help to come up with your own original content. I think you misunderstood what I meant by "D&D doesn't need to be balanced," though -- obviously, it needs to be balanced, but it doesn't need to be balanced in the same way GW needs to be balanced. D&D has the best balancing mechanism of all, which is a human being arbitrating the game. It's not that the game is mechanically balanced to precision, it's merely that it doesn't need to be because the effects of imbalance can be easily countered by a person sitting there making sure nobody tries stupid crap. And, as has been mentioned before, the goal of D&D and the mentality of those playing it are significantly different from that of GW. --Jette 08:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

>D&D has the best balancing mechanism of all, which is a human being arbitrating the game.

The GM is already a bottleneck in the traditional RPG playstyle. Asking him to also compensate for crappy rules on the fly just slows the game down even more. And, like I said above, the problem isn't so much rabid powergaming as players doing what sounds reasonable but falling into "traps" that shouldn't be there in the first place. It's easy to tell someone who's abusing the rules to sit down and shut up; it's harder to compensate for issues that arise because players mean well but make poor choices (and we can't assume that the GM will necessarily figure out how the rules are broken and compensate correctly, either). And, until one of the later splats (Player's Handbook 2?), there was no real approach for fixing broken characters -- unlike Guild Wars, D&D encourages the idea that the game rules are describing a coherent world, which discourages players from doing things like retroactively rewriting messed-up characters. In short, I think 3rd Edition was poorly balanced as a tactical combat game and the broken tactical-combat and character-building rules that were its centerpiece just result in more mess and work for the players in every other capacity. Having a human being around to deal with the mess doesn't excuse the system from making the mess in the first place. Besides tactical combat (which is imbalanced), I don't think D&D 3rd Edition is a substantive improvement over systemless play; that's kind of a monumental failure in my book. ;) — 130.58 (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Leveling up and character planning can get... ugh... messy. I'm not going to deny that. It takes experience to know what will and won't work, and very often if you plan on a character, you have to "build" that character on paper before he/she actually reaches that point of development. You're right, there are certain sandtraps that can make you want to pull your hair out because of how they get you "stuck," but overall it's worth it because the system is fun. It needs polishing in some respects, and supposedly the recent pathfinder system released (well, pirated) helps to fix that, but I haven't read it yet. --Jette 09:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at Pathfinder's system reference document, it looks more like a random collection of house-rules than a set of "compatibility"-preserving fixes or a coherent rewrite. Not all the design work is bad but the system includes rather pointless rewrites, some Smiter's-Booning, and new stuff with no apparent purpose. But they kept stuff like the Sorcerers Suck at Metamagic rule. Given the scope of the changes, I'm kinda confused about how one would actually use this system for the intended purpose of playing Paizo's current selection of "adventure path" books; it seems like that would be much easier using the stock "3.5e" system they were written for. — 130.58 (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In reference to your MtG statement, Shard, I'm sure Guild Wars developers would love to just "ban" skill combos, but you don't retain players by Smiter's Booning whatever broken shit happens to get theorycrafted a day after release. It's a fair argument that they could be faster about it, but it costs money to re-design skills, where as Wizard banning a card combination costs just about nothing. Also, if you've ever played a Bard or a Rogue in DnD, beyond, say, level 5, there isn't much they can't do. Sure, you might not be able to take on a horde of monsters at once, but using your fully specced selection of 10 or more skills, you can probably manage a way to take out an entire army in the middle of the night or convince them the general he ought to be attacking somewhere else. You could go ahead and say that the presumably level 15+ general would easily read through any skill checks a level 5 character might make, but then you're just unbalancing your own game by pitting a level 5 against something 10 levels higher. It shouldn't be up to the DM to fix a broken game, either.

As for Starcraft and Street Fighter, it isn't hard to balance things when you're simply weighing one factor against another. It would be a great idea for Guild Wars devs to balance attribute lines against each other. It would probably do some good to drop over half the skills in the game, too. You're also correct about the Primary Attributes. Skills need to be balanced with respect to primary attributes of all classes or primary attributes need to not affects skills from secondary classes. It's not an easy problem to solve, no matter how you look at it. ··· Danny Pew Pew 18:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Effect Uptime

"(5 second duration-2 second cast)/5 second recharge, or 60%"

Shouldnt it be (5 second duration)/5 second recharge + 2 second cast, or 71% uptime Talamare 15:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Xinrae Weapon

If youre going to use the best possible condition to determine a high value for the average, then you should also use the lowest possible condition which is it hitting an opponent with 1 hp who hit you for 0, thus making its effect 2 - making its true average 161 Talamare 15:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is still outrageously high for a 5e skill with no cast time and no recharge. ~Shard 02:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

True but RoF pulls a low average because it can be really good or really weak... other skills like patient spirit can average 120, dwaynas kiss could technically average 235 or higher... and dont even start on how much spirit bond, protective spirit, shielding hands and shield of absorbtion could potentially average... Talamare 03:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Spirit Bond caps at 960 at 14 prot. is for Raine, etc. 01:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

out of curiosity, wasn't the idea to make prots a bit more powerful than heals, in order to force intelligent gameplay? ··· Danny Pew Pew 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Supposedly. ~Shard 00:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Randomness Section

HSR and HCT mods and Guardian are something I would like to put a word in on. Guardian is very random. You have an equal chance for all outcomes to occur, that's pretty much the most random something can be as far as I know. HSR and HCT mods also have a fairly random rate of happening. There is about a 1 in 3 chance that either an HCT or HSR mod will trigger on a 40/40 set. That's for each effect.

In a casting situation it seems like a handicap to not use a 40/40 set on a caster. However, this is not always the case. For example Guardian is an enchant. Yes, you can run a 40/40 set when casting guardian. However, that is fully relying on a chance effect. Really there are a couple options to consider like an AL weapon set or a staff, and that would be because situation is random. Well it's not actually random, it's influenced and in some cases controlled by players as opposed to the normal random we see that's controlled by a computer. So, since situation is "random" it's up to the player to determine what to do at a given point in time. Casting guardian with an additional second or with a better of activating faster is a choice. Now casting WoH or Diversion doesn't have so much of a choice, but it's not the randomness of the effect that removes choice it's a lack of options.

Attacking through Guardian or changing target's is a choice, but so is disenchantment or a stance breaker on Natural Stride. What randomness of numbers does is give control the machine, which means players have less control. However, that lessening of control doesn't mean that choices are any fewer. It means that choices are different. What detracts from choice are limits and it probably isn't possible to create limits with randomness.

Blurred Vision for example (similar to guardian) limits attackers, and it would be a handicap not to take that to counter a warrior if it weren't for hex removal. However, the limit is not actually created by the randomness of blurred vision. The limit is created by the effect of missing. Would blurred vision limit or not limit choice if it's effect were 100% (or even 90% like blind, which is still random)? It would limit choice, because you can no longer attack. You're choice is to run the flag or body block, while the effect is up. The fact that the limit is limited to triggering 50% of the time keeps the choice of attacking as an option.

I guess my point is that 50/50 is equal to both sides, however limits applied by skill effects are not always the same. So, a negative limit on an enemy (notice the double negative) is a positive for the user, but to maintain choice randomness can be applied. The more randomness negates a limit the more viable a choice is. The less randomness adds to an option the less viable it is as a choice. ie attacking with a 25% chance to miss is more viable as a choice than attacking with a 50% chance of missing. Casting an enchantment with a 20% chance at HCT is a less viable option to choose than casting with a 34% chance at HCT, but because of the guarenteed effect of 20% enchant duration we often see a staff used with enchants. So, again my point is that randomness doesn't remove choice. Boundaries and limits of skill effects are what create limits for players. Randomness can in fact limit a limit, which means randomness can help with choice.76.181.167.16 08:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Randomness doesn't remove choice, but it makes choices less important, and that's why it's bad. ~Shard 03:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an easy way to get partial effects though. A skill like Guardian makes choices less important through opening up more possible outcomes, and I think that an argument could be made that this makes the game more interesting. If it was a solid 100% or close to it block for a couple of seconds or a low % long duration block, there wouldn't be any more choices available. I'm interested in what you would rather see done with existing random skills and mods. --67.240.83.137 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

100% chance to block isn't random. If guardian gave you immunity to physical damage, it would be balanced so that the USER had choices to make (it would probably cost a lot of energy and/or have a high recharge). The things I was trying to contrast are 50% chance to block versus 50% damage reduction. I'm saying the 50% reduction is preferable in a competitive game, even though both are technically identical. Winning shouldn't be based on a coin flip (which is essentially what guardian is). I would prefer to see all the random things in this game as static values (like your spells cast X% faster instead of X% chance to cast 100% or 300% faster). ~Shard 04:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. I got hung up on the choices part.

With fixed % mods, would you prefer to make them important to use or less so (e.g. rebalancing times around using them vs. same numbers as now with smaller decreases from the mods)? Or phrased differently: how much of an incentive would there be to swap for the correct mods? --67.240.83.137 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The randomness in question is part of the game's effects. These effects either present opportunities or create limits. Honestly a limit or opportunity is dependent on the perspective you take, which is mostly determined by which side you are on. A limit on the opposing team is an opportunity for yours. So, to say randomness limits choices is not the correct discussion. Limits and opportunities are what diminish choice, nothing else. If something clearly provides a great opportunity it will be chosen, otherwise you are playing handicapped. Since, a team can generate it's own opportunity through bonus effects on itself or limiting effects on the other team the game is very dynamic. However, randomness has absolutely nothing to do with opportunity or limits in and of itself. It only effects them when it is merged with effects. So instead of an effect either purely existing (100%) or no existing at all (0%) there is a middle ground. Think of it like a computer switch. The switch is either on (1) or off (0), however randomness changes the state of the switch between on or off. Randomness is not the switch itself. The switches are effects, and effects create opportunities or limits. Therefore randomness only influences effects, it does not have anything to do with the choices available because of effects. If anything randomness allows choice to be maintained.76.181.167.16 07:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Randomness is bad for skilled play. Discuss. is for Raine, etc. 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad or good is an opinion. Randomness changes skilled play. Discuss.76.181.167.16 07:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Randomness takes some "skill" out of "skilled play"; I think that's generally considered bad. is for Raine, etc. 14:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

no randomness makes games boring (except maybe starcraft). discuss. MAFARAXAS 03:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

s4. Discuss. is for Raine, etc. 05:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Handgun spray pattern. Discuss. Vili 点 02:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so like one weapon out of the armory. I maintain that random is not necessary for fun. is for Raine, etc. 02:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

True. Blocking, missing, attribute level restrictions, and weapon damage would probably need to involve timing somehow if randomness was gone, much like dodging a projectile involves timing. NPCs have some random functionality though especially henchmen, even though they have tendencies.76.181.167.16 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Randomness takes some "skill" out of "skilled play"; I think that's generally considered bad."

Randomness being bad and randomness not being necessary for fun are two very different things. I agreed that randomness isn't necessary when I cited starcraft. ofc there are other examples too. moo. MAFARAXAS 05:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If Call of Duty weapons all recoiled in the same direction, there would be no reward for using a weapon with less recoil because you could completely counter-measure any stronger recoils. Just throwing this out there. ··· Danny Pew Pew

I'd say making Guardian reduce damage output from melee (+40/60 armor against melee attacks?) would be a better fix than making it block 10% of the time, a block chance that would be neglectable but enough to make attack skills slightly unreliable and therefore unpredictable. I understand your point and I agree to a certain extent, but a passive skill like that one has little to do with skilled play. It'd actually be worse than the current Guardian which at least changes the game in a clear way so that skilled players know what do with it. 50% isn't the evil ratio, 25% is. Around at that ratio, making the effort to change targets and continue attacking the same target yield roughly equal results = maximum randomness. Morphy 08:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Quote: Maybe one skill does twice as much damage, but only works half the time. Those are fair tradeoffs.

Is it? Did you take spiking into account? What if hypothetically, the healer can easily outheal the dps? If so, the only way to make a kill is to us the twice as much damage skill to spike, and as such, the first skill cannot kill, but the second can. Yet at double the recharge, it's balanced?

Quote: Guild Wars is like physics. There are rules that must be followed. When one of these rules becomes broken, so does the game.

A common mistake that I'd like to correct here once and for all. Math does not set the rules for physics. Physics can be described by math, if (many) assumptions are made. We can then use these descriptions of physics to build stuff. However, no architect in his right mind would build a house based on what the math says: he will always make it stronger, to take into account unforseen events (like an earthquake). 145.94.74.23 10:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're about 2 years late. Shard has already said that the findings of this article have limited relevance to the actual game because of the nature of them.

Onto your points, I disagree with your opinion on math and its relation to balance. If anything, I believe (proper) mathematics should be used a helluva lot more. Unlike physics, game balance deals with mathematical objects. Most games and all computer games consist of objects that are mathematically definable. I don't even need to proof this for computer games because all computer programmes necessarily follow the rules of logic, which is a branch of mathematics. The consequence of this is that if a mathematical definition of game balance is given, the whole process of balancing could be done unbiasedly, without the models and guesswork that are currently necessary. I think the formalisation of balance is a very reachable and desirable goal.

As for your analogy, a good user of applied mathematics would already take things like that into account. The study of uncertainties is a rather large portion of mathematics that is applied to many things, statistics for example being used pretty much everywhere. Not sure how you missed that. Morphy 21:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)