Question For Cinco (Balance Related)

[MightyMicah]

Wowowow so many big posts. I agree with Kingfu about killing diversity. Making class specific set bonuses will drive players away from using other sets. As it is, the lack of diversity in PvP is making it stale. Any more and we might as well not have PvP.

I know there are balance issues, but sometimes people just don't get the point, and make it seem like it is a bigger problem than it is. Some people complain about balance when all they have ever done in PvP is say 'go' and run into the opponent spamming their skills. Using trees and moving around (or as people like to call it - "running away") are considered cheating. As a result, people have succumbed to system. A system where all your options are closed. If someone does the same thing over and over again and expects different results, they have high hopes.

The point of me saying the above paragraph is to come to a conclusion that we need more diversity rather than less diversity to balance PvP. We need to break the system instead of making it. What would you rather do - hope for an elite in 5 runs with a 100% reroll elix, or hope for an elite in 50 runs with a combo elixir? I compare your suggestion with the first, and my argument with the latter option.

First off, I appreciate your response, Bazinga!. I think I'd respond to your constructive criticisms with two points.

The first is that you mentioned my idea would probably kill diversity. Honestly, I don't think so. Right now, at any given level, there are at least 2 classes who are completely obsolete. (Perhaps there are a few exceptions. I'm speaking broadly.) My suggestion would provide a way for every class to compete at every level. So keep in mind that, hypothetically, we'll be at least gaining complete class diversity at *every* level bracket. It's true there are a lot of different options for other "builds" right now but typically it's only slight gear preference. For example, you'd ask yourself, "do I want dodge, or do I want crit?" which is honestly very insignificant in my eyes. If my suggestion for example got rolled out, you would definitely be seeing most classes equipping the same set at any given level. Would this kill diversity? It depends on your perspective. In my experience, there are already cookie cutter sets for each class at any given level anyways. (Again, with very limited choice of other gear, and even then minuscule stat differences)

Ok, this is where my idea becomes very, very important so read carefully please. We *do not* have to affect any levels that we don't want to affect with my idea. Earlier I discussed with KingFu the level 50-60 bracket. We both agreed that that level bracket is very well balanced. So with my suggestion, we could literally leave it alone. We could take the already existing set bonuses and apply them to each class individually so that every class that equips every set will get the same bonus that they're receiving now. In other words, *every* level bracket that is already fair, we could leave absolutely untouched. This means that we *would not* be killing diversity even in the slightest at any level bracket that we don't want to affect. However, say we discover that rhinos are pretty underpowered at 50-60. Let's say that in general they lack the damage it takes to kill their opponent. In this hypothetical scenario, we could give Rhinos alone extra damage when equipping certain sets. In this scenario we'd be affectively buffing/nerfing a single class without affecting anything else. Surely you can see how this idea, rolled out properly, could be huge.

Your second point seemed to indicate (I hate to misrepresent your viewpoint, so please feel free to correct me) that you believe the game is fairly well balanced already, and that people merely need to rewire their minds to see PvP more as a whole, and less as a duel environment. I definitely hear where you're coming from, but I simply disagree. Yes, we must keep what you're saying in mind because FFA is what PvP has been designed for. If we design everything around 1v1, we could actually run into some serious issues. But I think, even so, there are some classes at some levels that just struggle to compete in any scenario. But again, going back to my previous point, my idea doesn't have to affect anything that we don't wish it to. If we identify a class as being unbalanced in an FFA setting, we can balance it with set bonuses. If we decide that maybe the class struggles in 1v1 but it's perfectly fine in an FFA setting, then we don't have to change it. It's as simple as identifying a problem and fixing it. If we identify no problems, we don't have to fix them.

Personally, though, I have found PL to be very unbalanced in many aspects. After playing Guild Wars 2 for about 5 years, trying to return to PL has been rough. Shoot, even playing Smash Bros. Melee competitively has really opened my eyes. In both of these games you can play the "underpowered" or "low tier" classes and still wreck if you have any amount of skill. In PL, that simply isn't the case. Your statistical imbalances will leave you getting wrecked regardless of your own movement/skill. This is, in part, what's led me to suggest the balance changes I have. We need something that can balance everyone's statistical weaknesses because in this game, those are very significant. (Especially at levels 1-66, which is more where I'm speaking from)

I'd love to hear your thoughts on my response!