EphraimGlass, on 28 December 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:
When I consider balance in GW1, I think that it was constantly chasing a moving target. It was a reactive process where they elevated or struck down builds in response to the evolution of the metagame. In GW2, they have proposed to proactively balance, which is at least conceivable with the smaller number of permutations. I'm neither arguing that they've been successful nor that this is a desirable state. I'm merely arguing that it is more plausible that they could proactively balance GW2 while it is clear that they never quite hit the mark in GW1.
Wanted to chime in here. I agree that they never quite hit the mark in proactively balancing GW1. By the time EotN was released, the permutations of skill combos were so vast that I'd think it difficult to consider every interaction within a reasonable time window. The number of skills combined with the power creep introduced after Prophecies demanded a reactive approach to balance. It's hard for me to say that GW1 reached a semblance of balance--where you could run a diversity of builds and be competitive--because the game became balanced around limited cookie-cutter builds per patch in GvG/HA. What I saw as a result was a cycle of seeing a fotm arise, key skills to the fotm being nerfed in a new patch, and then a new fotm arising from the buffs and nerfs of said patch.
I'm also not going to conclude if they have been either successful or unsuccessful, but I think by reducing the number of skills in GW2 and barring second professions, Anet's proactive approach to balance is trying to move away from fostering volatile metas that consisted of few builds to a more robust one where--ideally--diverse builds stay competitive. I like this approach, but I can see how other factors, such as the format of the PvP itself and the way they designed each class to carry out each role (damage/support/control), are placing restraints on this diversity. I hope we find a happy medium, because the talk before the game was launched about how if you wanna be a warrior with a bow or a ranger with an axe, you can, sounded really cool.
The Shadow, on 27 December 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:
You don't have to give an Ele access to every single Warrior utility/ weapon skill. You could give Ele access to a battle-standard. Would this be game-breaking or inherently harmful? No.. Could this add variety/ flavour/ allow for more interesting build combinations? Sure could. This is just an example.
I can understand the thinking behind this, but personally, I like the appeal of unique themes for each class and the idea that each class is self-sufficient in carrying out the three roles of combat. I would rather they focus more on fostering the variety within classes and honing each's capacity to carry out roles than source from other professions. Aesthetic-wise, I can see people having an interest, but function-wise, I'm not so sure.
Edited by Og Bamser, 31 December 2012 - 11:54 AM.