Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Not a fan of 1-shots that are as simple as pressing a button. But it all really depends on class mechanics and their tradeoffs. You could also say that a class shouldn't be able to deal high damage while also having high defense. But you could actually do that if as a result, that class had low mobility and lacked CC. It balances out its strengths with weaknesses. A stealth class with 1 shot capabilities, in reality it'd be high burst damage abilities, would likely also be squishy to the point of being able to be 1 shot themselves if they aren't careful. You could also counter them by not being proficient against heavier armor, less sustainability for prolonged fights, or even cooldowns or conditions(being behind targets) for their abilities to work. These weaknesses could be balanced by stealth, mobility, high burst damage, and maybe even CC. Point I'm making. It all depends on context, and what each class is capable of and what they lack or are weak against. And the synergy system as well as the 8 player party balance will be a huge determining factor on whether or not these high-burst mechanics can work in the game. So we just need more information to have any real say for if it fits in ashes. Balance =/= fun though. There are certain mechanics/options that you can make sure are absolutely balanced, in fact, they can even be outright underpowered, and they'd still be unfun and counter to the engaging gameplay to go up against. Similarly, you can make certain things quite strong and because the WAY in which they are strong isn't fun to actually do, no one wants to play them except the people who just 'have to be the most OP'. Just saying that I prefer that we don't look to 'balance' as a meaningful part of this conversation at all. I mean, it definitely should be a part of the conversation. Fun should just be added to the equation for everything being designed. It's as simple as what I already said, and making sure the gameplay is still enjoyable. I agree you shouldn't prioritize balance if it negatively affects gameplay or the games intended design. But to abandon balance in this conversation entirely seems a bit extreme. If you have a mechanic lacking good balance or fun, then you probably shouldn't implement the mechanic in question. I mention it because balance is emergent and subjective. It's possible for a thing to 'seem fun' when viewed in 'isolation' (which is basically what we're doing) or in primary expected situations, and then never result in that. But lemme be a bit more contrary then. Oneshots are never fun. Glass Cannon builds being in a game are seldom fun. Those things don't depend on context because they are the things that tend to create the 'context'. Doesn't matter how you balance them. They're anti-fun. Well that's just opinion. One we mostly share. But if they are implemented in a way that is fun and mostly balanced, I enjoy them. Yeah but by your own admission you don't always play MMOs to 'enjoy the fight', you sometimes play to 'enjoy outsmarting the other player'. Which is what that terrible holdover of a bad tradition of design leans into. MMOs are like the only genre left other than shitty Fighting Games that haven't learned this lesson yet, presumably because of this terrible tradition. So based on the scenario the OP presented, and what little I know about you from your previous data, you're not actually having fun because either the Oneshot Option or even the Glass Cannon exists. You're having fun because of another reason. EDIT: Please therefore, educate me more. What is it about the existence of this build type that is FUN exactly?
Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Not a fan of 1-shots that are as simple as pressing a button. But it all really depends on class mechanics and their tradeoffs. You could also say that a class shouldn't be able to deal high damage while also having high defense. But you could actually do that if as a result, that class had low mobility and lacked CC. It balances out its strengths with weaknesses. A stealth class with 1 shot capabilities, in reality it'd be high burst damage abilities, would likely also be squishy to the point of being able to be 1 shot themselves if they aren't careful. You could also counter them by not being proficient against heavier armor, less sustainability for prolonged fights, or even cooldowns or conditions(being behind targets) for their abilities to work. These weaknesses could be balanced by stealth, mobility, high burst damage, and maybe even CC. Point I'm making. It all depends on context, and what each class is capable of and what they lack or are weak against. And the synergy system as well as the 8 player party balance will be a huge determining factor on whether or not these high-burst mechanics can work in the game. So we just need more information to have any real say for if it fits in ashes. Balance =/= fun though. There are certain mechanics/options that you can make sure are absolutely balanced, in fact, they can even be outright underpowered, and they'd still be unfun and counter to the engaging gameplay to go up against. Similarly, you can make certain things quite strong and because the WAY in which they are strong isn't fun to actually do, no one wants to play them except the people who just 'have to be the most OP'. Just saying that I prefer that we don't look to 'balance' as a meaningful part of this conversation at all. I mean, it definitely should be a part of the conversation. Fun should just be added to the equation for everything being designed. It's as simple as what I already said, and making sure the gameplay is still enjoyable. I agree you shouldn't prioritize balance if it negatively affects gameplay or the games intended design. But to abandon balance in this conversation entirely seems a bit extreme. If you have a mechanic lacking good balance or fun, then you probably shouldn't implement the mechanic in question. I mention it because balance is emergent and subjective. It's possible for a thing to 'seem fun' when viewed in 'isolation' (which is basically what we're doing) or in primary expected situations, and then never result in that. But lemme be a bit more contrary then. Oneshots are never fun. Glass Cannon builds being in a game are seldom fun. Those things don't depend on context because they are the things that tend to create the 'context'. Doesn't matter how you balance them. They're anti-fun. Well that's just opinion. One we mostly share. But if they are implemented in a way that is fun and mostly balanced, I enjoy them.
Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Not a fan of 1-shots that are as simple as pressing a button. But it all really depends on class mechanics and their tradeoffs. You could also say that a class shouldn't be able to deal high damage while also having high defense. But you could actually do that if as a result, that class had low mobility and lacked CC. It balances out its strengths with weaknesses. A stealth class with 1 shot capabilities, in reality it'd be high burst damage abilities, would likely also be squishy to the point of being able to be 1 shot themselves if they aren't careful. You could also counter them by not being proficient against heavier armor, less sustainability for prolonged fights, or even cooldowns or conditions(being behind targets) for their abilities to work. These weaknesses could be balanced by stealth, mobility, high burst damage, and maybe even CC. Point I'm making. It all depends on context, and what each class is capable of and what they lack or are weak against. And the synergy system as well as the 8 player party balance will be a huge determining factor on whether or not these high-burst mechanics can work in the game. So we just need more information to have any real say for if it fits in ashes. Balance =/= fun though. There are certain mechanics/options that you can make sure are absolutely balanced, in fact, they can even be outright underpowered, and they'd still be unfun and counter to the engaging gameplay to go up against. Similarly, you can make certain things quite strong and because the WAY in which they are strong isn't fun to actually do, no one wants to play them except the people who just 'have to be the most OP'. Just saying that I prefer that we don't look to 'balance' as a meaningful part of this conversation at all. I mean, it definitely should be a part of the conversation. Fun should just be added to the equation for everything being designed. It's as simple as what I already said, and making sure the gameplay is still enjoyable. I agree you shouldn't prioritize balance if it negatively affects gameplay or the games intended design. But to abandon balance in this conversation entirely seems a bit extreme. If you have a mechanic lacking good balance or fun, then you probably shouldn't implement the mechanic in question. I mention it because balance is emergent and subjective. It's possible for a thing to 'seem fun' when viewed in 'isolation' (which is basically what we're doing) or in primary expected situations, and then never result in that. But lemme be a bit more contrary then. Oneshots are never fun. Glass Cannon builds being in a game are seldom fun. Those things don't depend on context because they are the things that tend to create the 'context'. Doesn't matter how you balance them. They're anti-fun.
Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Not a fan of 1-shots that are as simple as pressing a button. But it all really depends on class mechanics and their tradeoffs. You could also say that a class shouldn't be able to deal high damage while also having high defense. But you could actually do that if as a result, that class had low mobility and lacked CC. It balances out its strengths with weaknesses. A stealth class with 1 shot capabilities, in reality it'd be high burst damage abilities, would likely also be squishy to the point of being able to be 1 shot themselves if they aren't careful. You could also counter them by not being proficient against heavier armor, less sustainability for prolonged fights, or even cooldowns or conditions(being behind targets) for their abilities to work. These weaknesses could be balanced by stealth, mobility, high burst damage, and maybe even CC. Point I'm making. It all depends on context, and what each class is capable of and what they lack or are weak against. And the synergy system as well as the 8 player party balance will be a huge determining factor on whether or not these high-burst mechanics can work in the game. So we just need more information to have any real say for if it fits in ashes. Balance =/= fun though. There are certain mechanics/options that you can make sure are absolutely balanced, in fact, they can even be outright underpowered, and they'd still be unfun and counter to the engaging gameplay to go up against. Similarly, you can make certain things quite strong and because the WAY in which they are strong isn't fun to actually do, no one wants to play them except the people who just 'have to be the most OP'. Just saying that I prefer that we don't look to 'balance' as a meaningful part of this conversation at all. I mean, it definitely should be a part of the conversation. Fun should just be added to the equation for everything being designed. It's as simple as what I already said, and making sure the gameplay is still enjoyable. I agree you shouldn't prioritize balance if it negatively affects gameplay or the games intended design. But to abandon balance in this conversation entirely seems a bit extreme. If you have a mechanic lacking good balance or fun, then you probably shouldn't implement the mechanic in question.
Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Not a fan of 1-shots that are as simple as pressing a button. But it all really depends on class mechanics and their tradeoffs. You could also say that a class shouldn't be able to deal high damage while also having high defense. But you could actually do that if as a result, that class had low mobility and lacked CC. It balances out its strengths with weaknesses. A stealth class with 1 shot capabilities, in reality it'd be high burst damage abilities, would likely also be squishy to the point of being able to be 1 shot themselves if they aren't careful. You could also counter them by not being proficient against heavier armor, less sustainability for prolonged fights, or even cooldowns or conditions(being behind targets) for their abilities to work. These weaknesses could be balanced by stealth, mobility, high burst damage, and maybe even CC. Point I'm making. It all depends on context, and what each class is capable of and what they lack or are weak against. And the synergy system as well as the 8 player party balance will be a huge determining factor on whether or not these high-burst mechanics can work in the game. So we just need more information to have any real say for if it fits in ashes. Balance =/= fun though. There are certain mechanics/options that you can make sure are absolutely balanced, in fact, they can even be outright underpowered, and they'd still be unfun and counter to the engaging gameplay to go up against. Similarly, you can make certain things quite strong and because the WAY in which they are strong isn't fun to actually do, no one wants to play them except the people who just 'have to be the most OP'. Just saying that I prefer that we don't look to 'balance' as a meaningful part of this conversation at all.
Dolyem wrote: » Not a fan of 1-shots that are as simple as pressing a button. But it all really depends on class mechanics and their tradeoffs. You could also say that a class shouldn't be able to deal high damage while also having high defense. But you could actually do that if as a result, that class had low mobility and lacked CC. It balances out its strengths with weaknesses. A stealth class with 1 shot capabilities, in reality it'd be high burst damage abilities, would likely also be squishy to the point of being able to be 1 shot themselves if they aren't careful. You could also counter them by not being proficient against heavier armor, less sustainability for prolonged fights, or even cooldowns or conditions(being behind targets) for their abilities to work. These weaknesses could be balanced by stealth, mobility, high burst damage, and maybe even CC. Point I'm making. It all depends on context, and what each class is capable of and what they lack or are weak against. And the synergy system as well as the 8 player party balance will be a huge determining factor on whether or not these high-burst mechanics can work in the game. So we just need more information to have any real say for if it fits in ashes.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » It's insanity being able to stay in cloak within 5 meters away from your target while the target's eyes are directly face forwarding you in a fully illuminated area Such cloak capacity should be based on illumination, distance, camouflage and witnesses Anyone who disagrees is wrong!!! There's not point dancing around the cloak issues and mechanics before fixing the base of the problem Best would be considering illumination, distance, camouflage and witnesses: target should NOT be facing the rogue if someone else is facing the rogue, that person should be still able to see him if anyone in the party is facing the rogue, the rogue should never cloak in their eyes But if there's low illumination, distance and camouflage then the rogue should not be seen by anyone at all, even if all characters are facing the rogue The rogue should be left to think that he is cloaked if he used the skill... but he should have no UI confirmation that people are still seeing him.... this leaves the chance for people to pretend they are not seeing the rogue so then people can bait the rogueCloaking and Stealth are a problem in all games, it's overpowered, it has many UI confirmations, rogues are too confortable and they feel no danger at all. All that confort and control should be taken away from them, they should still be able to cloak and stealh, but that should have a chance of failing (not by rng but but by illumination, camouflage, distance and witnesses) and the rogue should have no UI confirmation about itSo if the rogue is running cloak and being seen by his target, if a third person comes up then this third person won't see the rogue.... the target will have to tell where the rogue is and this third person will have to run over there and get within range and break the illumination + camouflage + distance checks... THEN this third person should be able to see the rogue. If this third person was in the target's party then he should be able to see the rogue from start because a party member was already seeing him and the checks were already beaten ps: One-shots between characters in the same level range should never happen regardless the class, unless the target is naked
Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Not a fan of 1-shots that are as simple as pressing a button. But it all really depends on class mechanics and their tradeoffs. You could also say that a class shouldn't be able to deal high damage while also having high defense. But you could actually do that if as a result, that class had low mobility and lacked CC. It balances out its strengths with weaknesses. A stealth class with 1 shot capabilities, in reality it'd be high burst damage abilities, would likely also be squishy to the point of being able to be 1 shot themselves if they aren't careful. You could also counter them by not being proficient against heavier armor, less sustainability for prolonged fights, or even cooldowns or conditions(being behind targets) for their abilities to work. These weaknesses could be balanced by stealth, mobility, high burst damage, and maybe even CC. Point I'm making. It all depends on context, and what each class is capable of and what they lack or are weak against. And the synergy system as well as the 8 player party balance will be a huge determining factor on whether or not these high-burst mechanics can work in the game. So we just need more information to have any real say for if it fits in ashes. Balance =/= fun though. There are certain mechanics/options that you can make sure are absolutely balanced, in fact, they can even be outright underpowered, and they'd still be unfun and counter to the engaging gameplay to go up against. Similarly, you can make certain things quite strong and because the WAY in which they are strong isn't fun to actually do, no one wants to play them except the people who just 'have to be the most OP'. Just saying that I prefer that we don't look to 'balance' as a meaningful part of this conversation at all. I mean, it definitely should be a part of the conversation. Fun should just be added to the equation for everything being designed. It's as simple as what I already said, and making sure the gameplay is still enjoyable. I agree you shouldn't prioritize balance if it negatively affects gameplay or the games intended design. But to abandon balance in this conversation entirely seems a bit extreme. If you have a mechanic lacking good balance or fun, then you probably shouldn't implement the mechanic in question. I mention it because balance is emergent and subjective. It's possible for a thing to 'seem fun' when viewed in 'isolation' (which is basically what we're doing) or in primary expected situations, and then never result in that. But lemme be a bit more contrary then. Oneshots are never fun. Glass Cannon builds being in a game are seldom fun. Those things don't depend on context because they are the things that tend to create the 'context'. Doesn't matter how you balance them. They're anti-fun. Well that's just opinion. One we mostly share. But if they are implemented in a way that is fun and mostly balanced, I enjoy them. Yeah but by your own admission you don't always play MMOs to 'enjoy the fight', you sometimes play to 'enjoy outsmarting the other player'. Which is what that terrible holdover of a bad tradition of design leans into. MMOs are like the only genre left other than shitty Fighting Games that haven't learned this lesson yet, presumably because of this terrible tradition. So based on the scenario the OP presented, and what little I know about you from your previous data, you're not actually having fun because either the Oneshot Option or even the Glass Cannon exists. You're having fun because of another reason. EDIT: Please therefore, educate me more. What is it about the existence of this build type that is FUN exactly? The assassin build of getting to a key target to take them out quickly and either attempt to flee afterwards or die trying is pretty fun imo. It's fun to be a menace. Also being on the recieving end puts the team on edge, knowing it is a possibility you have to play defensively as well as offensively. And waiting for the right time to strike or manuevering precisely to avoid other enemies while utilizing your main mechanic, stealth, is really fun. Also charging up a kamehameha is satisfying as hell if you can pull it off. You're an obvious target and threat whike charging it, but if you manage to pull it off you get to throw a nuke at someone. Pretty satisfying. The only times these are negative is on the receiving end. But if the entire balancing process is based off of 8v8 gameplay, they have plenty of counters to each of then. 1v1 is the only scenarios where they may be issues.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » @Depraved I don't think they should be able to cloak when they are right in front of you when they are in arm's reach Would be acceptable if they have smoke grenades and then hit the cloak button Or the rogue should roll and land behind the warrior and then cloak Or run behind a tree and cloak Or stun and then cloak Etc That plain miraculous cloak rogues have is just disappointing
Azherae wrote: » Balance =/= fun though.
Tyranthraxus wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Balance =/= fun though. This should be at the fore-front of concern, when attempting balancing in games. Yours truly is definitely someone who values fun > balance.
Solvryn wrote: » I have fun when the game is balanced though. I don't enjoy being shit on because someone has a numerical advantage but has zero acumen in any of the proficiencies needed to be successful at PvP.
Tyranthraxus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » I have fun when the game is balanced though. I don't enjoy being shit on because someone has a numerical advantage but has zero acumen in any of the proficiencies needed to be successful at PvP. Is it somehow genuinely your concern that only balance can be fun? If you had to choose between 1 *or* the other, which should really take precendence? Again, yours truly would emphasize fun > balance. In an ideal world? We shouldn't have to choose; it should be balance = fun. But what if it doesn't? Which should take precendence?
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » @Depraved of course, all classes should able to PvP otherwise the game will suffer serious balancing issues The view on which the warrior is entitled to be the top dog on duels is just poor All classes should be able to duel and be as effective as any other class The difference is who can survive, it's a combination of tanking, dps, healing, sustain, dots, power, strategy and knowing the other guy's build and he can do with it Inta kills is just shit game design, In WoW i had an orc rogue, undead warlock and gnome mage... because WoW is an inferior game I had those builds that can kill certain people with a combo and then I had to avoid certain builds.... so my gameplay was pretty much attached into certain scenarios In GW2 my main is a Mechanist, it's amazing because I can tweak all styles of gameplay with it, this is by far the most fun build among all games ever. I can make power builds, tank build that can take power strike bosses, can be a top healer, can support, I can do anything literally... it is all about the skill trees, which skills, which sigils, which weapons and how I manage all that against each target GW2 pvp is way more engaging than WoW pvp
novercalis wrote: » this game isnt about 1 v1 fighting chance. It's a co-op pvp. You go hunting alone, expect to be attacked. It's been establish balance will be based on 8v8 scenerios. So expect broken 1v1 matches. The game isnt revolve around 1v1
