Question For Cinco (Balance Related)

[MightyMicah]

Hey Cinco, wasn't sure if I should just pm you or create a thread. I opted for a thread, that way maybe a productive conversation can be started in the comments. I'll try and get straight to the question:

Is it possible for a set bonus (I'm speaking in terms of coding) to be applied only to a specific class? For example, consider the Raid Roach set at level 55. Currently, if I'm not mistaken, the set bonus it provides will apply to any/every class that is specced to equip the set. But would it be possible to only allow the set bonus to apply to one (or maybe two) class(es)?

If this is possible, I believe it will be a large key to balancing every level in PL PvP.

I'll go ahead and come out in the open with this, but I've been working for a few months now on PL PvP balance. I'd really like to see this game balanced, and seeing Cinco put some effort into balancing it has encouraged me. Previously, I felt that even if I created the set up for balancing PvP perfectly across the board (not that I'm capable of it), it wouldn't matter because no one would be around to code the game according to my suggestions. Cinco has given me hope, though. I plan to keep working on it, though the progress is extremely slow. I'm very, very busy irl and don't have too much time to dedicate to PL PvP balance. But, like I said, I'll keep working on it.

-MM

[KingFu]

I'd be strongly opposed to this. I've said for a while, 50-60 range (as used in your example) should remain mostly untouched, as balance isn't much of a concern there. I think tinkering with it could easily do more harm than good to the currently most balanced range in the game.

This would also ruin any sort of diversity there is at any level. 90% of bears at that range use either mace set or plat talon anyways, most mages use int sets, and almost all birds use dex sets right now, so I fail to see how this would do any sort of class balancing. I haven't been too active in 66-71 but from what I have this wouldn't really balance much either, and anywhere below 50 it wouldn't apply to anyways since no one uses sets there. All it would do is limit people and kill any level of diversity that still remains.

The only area this idea would help balance would be at endgame, which Cinco has already addressed with making the 2h weapons class specific. Applying this to levels below that would just be an all around bad idea.

Honestly, the more I read this idea and think about it, it's really quite nonsensical.

[MightyMicah]

I'd be strongly opposed to this. I've said for a while, 50-60 range (as used in your example) should remain mostly untouched, as balance isn't much of a concern there. I think tinkering with it could easily do more harm than good to the currently most balanced range in the game.

This would also ruin any sort of diversity there is at any level. 90% of bears at that range use either mace set or plat talon anyways, most mages use int sets, and almost all birds use dex sets right now, so I fail to see how this would do any sort of class balancing. I haven't been too active in 66-71 but from what I have this wouldn't really balance much either, and anywhere below 50 it wouldn't apply to anyways since no one uses sets there. All it would do is limit people and kill any level of diversity that still remains.

The only area this idea would help balance would be at endgame, which Cinco has already addressed with making the 2h weapons class specific. Applying this to levels below that would just be an all around bad idea.

Honestly, the more I read this idea and think about it, it's really quite nonsensical.

I'd have to disagree with your assessment. Allowing class specific set bonuses could add the exact factor that we need. Namely, the ability to compensate whatever the specific class is lacking statistically speaking. For example, if a bird is lacking damage at a specific level, we could tie it to a class specific set bonus. This would allow the bird to gain the damage it needs, without causing other classes who equip the set to have over powered damage output. Or if a bear lacks dodge at a specific range, we could tie it to a class specific set bonus that would only benefit the bear. That way birds couldn't obtain too much dodge by using the set.

You mentioned level 55 (specifically, you said 50-60), but I think it's a shame that you missed my point. I only brought up level 55 because raid roach was the first set that popped into my head. I actually agree with you that level 50-60 is very well balanced. Ideally balanced, I'd even say. (Not perfect, of course.)

Finally, you mentioned lower levels not really having sets so my idea, provided it worked, would only benefit higher levels. I'd say you're thinking inside the box. The lower levels have most of the building blocks for sets, and even a few sets at a couple levels (25, 35) Would it really be that hard to add a piece or two to different levels, or even just rename a few items to complete the set? I don't think that's too far of a stretch if we're already reworking set bonuses in the first place.

But going back to my main point, do you see how class specific bonuses could fill in the gaps, statistically speaking, for whatever the class is lacking? I think this could be especially potent at the lower levels. I'm not saying we go crazy with it or anything. Balance should always be done in small doses first.

I'll throw in one more thought, and then I'd love to hear your response if you have the time. This doesn't even necessarily have to mean that a class can only get a bonus for their stat-related set. It could mean that a bear equips a dex set, int set, or str set, at his level and gets an entirely different set bonus from say a bird, or a mage who equip the same set. Does that make more sense?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[KingFu]

I'd have to disagree with your assessment. Allowing class specific set bonuses could add the exact factor that we need. Namely, the ability to compensate whatever the specific class is lacking statistically speaking. For example, if a bird is lacking damage at a specific level, we could tie it to a class specific set bonus. This would allow the bird to gain the damage it needs, without causing other classes who equip the set to have over powered damage output. Or if a bear lacks dodge at a specific range, we could tie it to a class specific set bonus that would only benefit the bear. That way birds couldn't obtain too much dodge by using the set.

This seems like way too convoluted of a solution for an issue that's hardly even there. Your examples don't seem to apply. At what range do bears have a lack of dodge? As most know it wouldn't benefit any higher level bears due to the dodge cap. Can you give any real world examples? What class at what level range would this benefit? And why would these class-specific set bonuses in your specific example be worth the effort rather than making changes to the class itself, or the gear at that respective level in your example? Again, you're just giving hollow instances, give some that this could realistically apply to.

"That way birds couldn't obtain too much dodge by using the set." Again, poor example, because dodge cap. I could maybe see your point if things like warbirds were running rampant and at risk of dominating PvP, but they're not, so your example isn't applicable in either regard. As I said, a vast majority of characters use the gear originally designed for their class, and the ones that don't are mostly a non-issue. We don't need to hinder them, nor do we need to add precautions to prevent them from becoming more viable. Giving incentives to use the stat-correlating set of each class wouldn't do anything in terms of balance aside from making every build more cookie cutter than it already is. Which I guess is a form of balance, but not a good one.

You mentioned level 55 (specifically, you said 50-60), but I think it's a shame that you missed my point. I only brought up level 55 because raid roach was the first set that popped into my head. I actually agree with you that level 50-60 is very well balanced. Ideally balanced, I'd even say. (Not perfect, of course.)

Again, if this doesn't apply to 50-60, then can you give a specific, real world example?

Finally, you mentioned lower levels not really having sets so my idea, provided it worked, would only benefit higher levels. I'd say you're thinking inside the box. The lower levels have most of the building blocks for sets, and even a few sets at a couple levels (25, 35) Would it really be that hard to add a piece or two to different levels, or even just rename a few items to complete the set? I don't think that's too far of a stretch if we're already reworking set bonuses in the first place.

What do you mean by "rename a few items to complete a set?" Are you suggesting adding/changing items/sets, adding more sets to lower levels, and overhauling the current sets (SSC and Swamp) at lower levels, all while making them balanced? Because that's a ton of work that would also bring in a new slate of problems to solve.

But going back to my main point, do you see how class specific bonuses could fill in the gaps, statistically speaking, for whatever the class is lacking? I think this could be especially potent at the lower levels. I'm not saying we go crazy with it or anything. Balance should always be done in small doses first.

Not really, because I think any "filling in the gaps" could be done just as, if not more easily through other means. Maybe this would be a more precise strategy if given the proper resources, but that's not really a luxury at hand right now. Your solution isn't a low-effort alternative by any means. If enough effort could be put into adding several unique set bonuses, for specific class and gear combinations, across multiple level ranges, adding/changing lower level sets, all while tuning them properly to balance their respective levels, well, then I think the game would already be balanced through more practical methods.

Besides, Cinco has shown before changes can be made to precise level ranges (such as changing damage output by 20% for levels 61-70), which I'm sure could be applied exclusively to classes. Which also seems much simpler than altering unique set bonuses.

Cinco also doesn't do small doses. He's more of a double fister than a wine spritzer.

I'll throw in one more thought, and then I'd love to hear your response if you have the time. This doesn't even necessarily have to mean that a class can only get a bonus for their stat-related set. It could mean that a bear equips a dex set, int set, or str set, at his level and gets an entirely different set bonus from say a bird, or a mage who equip the same set. Does that make more sense?

It makes sense, yes, but it's incredibly impractical. Like I said above, that is a ton of work to implement. You're also overlooking that these set bonuses would need specific numbers and values attached to them that would need to be balanced across their level ranges.

Again, if you're just talking the stat-related sets for each class, I strongly disagree and see it as futile in terms of balancing, and would really just kill any diversity that remains. If you're talking unique bonuses for each set when equipped on each class like you mentioned here, well, that's just asking for a lot. But that's the thing, you're (seemingly) suggesting both, which makes it hard to argue since you don't seem to know exactly what your idea is aside from a brief paragrap. If you really think this suggestion is "a large key to balancing every level in PL PvP", then I'd encourage you to pin down which idea you're suggesting, give practical applications of it with real numbers and values, and why it'd be a good solution. As it stands this is pretty vague and sounds like a ton of work you'd be asking of Cinco with not a lot of direction. There have been dozens of long-winded threads going in-depth about how to fix PvP balancing. Some have done "much of the work", which really means much of the brainstorming and no heavy-lifting. The reason those ideas haven't been properly executed and implemented is because they require more manpower and resources than one man can provide.

[Dolloway]

I think level 55 (using Sewer sets only) is one of the most diverse and balanced levels in the game. There are so many gear choices and specs to work with at this level, which is why I think this is a poor choice to use as an example to support your argument.

That being said, I find this to be too much work and don't necessarily think that it will balance lower levels. If anything, as stated by Kingfu, I think this idea will kill diversity more.

What I would like to see happen, at least in terms of endgame pvp, is something like having certain stats apply in one map but not apply in others. Right now, you get a certain bonus for 2h sets when you enter Ok'tal maps. This means that you currently have two completely different stats on sets when entering pvp and pve at endgame. Perhaps what can be done is to allow stats to be completely different in pvp arenas 77-85 than in pve. When entering these arenas, lower level gear would be scaled down (like 76 Phoenix set) so as not to compete with level 85 sets in those arenas. When entering 77+ pvp zones with 77+ gear, sets can have stats that have been roughly known to work, perhaps with slight adjustments to armor (for the extra skill dmg) or other stats. In addition to this, slight changes will have to be made to skills, particularly from 6-9. No complete overhaul of what the skill does, just some fixes. As cinco has shown in previous balance changes, he's willing to make changes to skills.

If something like this were to work for endgame, perhaps it can also be applied to other pvp brackets as well, at least the ones that need it the most like 66-76 does imo.

No idea how much work this would take, but it seems like somewhat of a reasonable proposal given that cinco has already shown he's willing to make such changes to stats in certain maps like he's shown at endgame with the difference of stats between pve and pvp. Also not sure if the idea is completely solid. I'm just shooting right now.

[Communion]

I reall like everyone's thoughts on this, makes me feel like I have nothing to say.

[Perf]

lol big fite

[MightyMicah]

(Removed content so as not to create a bigger text than needed.)

You’re still missing the point. I think you and I would agree that there is a lot of PvP imbalance in this game. Name any statistical imbalance in the game that you want, and we could apply the concept I’ve suggested. The reason why my concept could be huge is because it will allow us to tweak any level without affecting PvP across the board. For example, if we nerf a bird’s dodge buff at higher levels, it will affect low levels as well. If we nerf a mage’s overall damage output at end game, it will also affect lower levels. No matter where you nerf a class, whether it be inherent skills, damage, hit%, or you name it; no matter where we nerf the class, it will affect every level. But if we can incorporate a philosophical game design that allows us to modify *each* class at *each* level of the game, and compensate whatever statistical weaknesses they have, we have a tool capable of balancing the entire game one step at a time. Am I wrong? This is what I am suggesting.

I’ll use 35 as an example since it’s a level that I’ve played at quite a bit. At 35, birds struggle to compete, and throughout many past updates they have always struggled to compete. Against mages, they have a difficult time nuking due to lack of damage. (And, of course, without a nuke mages can merely heal.) In order to try and remedy this, most birds use str in order to gain nuking capability. However, this becomes very difficult to do also, as mages can then fairly easily kite them, now that their auto attack isn’t ranged. (Let me pause here for a moment and say that obviously 35 is a *lot* more complex than just bird vs mage, but I want to keep it simple for now.) So, what if we give birds a bow set that deals enough to damage to nuke a mage? What would be the obvious problem that would result? Now mages can use that bow as well, and their damage output will be insane. One Drain could potentially kill the bird. Does this sound familiar? It should because that’s exactly what happened during the forgotten bow event. That’s in part why that event was poor design as far as balance is concerned. But now pause for a moment. What if a bird can equip a bow set where the set bonus increases the birds damage output enough to nuke a mage, but when the mage equips the same bow set, rather than gaining extra damage output equivalent to that of the bird, the mage gains something entirely different. Perhaps extra M/s, or maybe some extra armor, or even crit chance. Do you still not see how this idea has the potential to fix every statistical imbalance in the game, without affecting other levels in the balancing process?

You made a few comments regarding my statement about completing sets at low levels. Yes, that is what I was referring to. I agree with you that it would take a lot of work, but I think any viable solution to the current imbalances in the PvP level ranges would take a lot of work. I think the key is to find a solution that is a permanent one that can balance every level in isolation from the other levels. Any solution that involves nerfing/buffing a class itself will not ever balance the entire game because one level will always offset another. Personally, I’m totally fine doing all of the work for Cinco. He can then assess it and do with it what he pleases. And shoot, if guys like you are willing to help me, I think we could knock it out in a timely manner with a fair degree of accuracy. All we lack is someone to do the coding. But Cinco seems pretty chill with doing updates as of late so I don’t know if he’d be opposed or not. That’s partly why I made this thread and addressed it to Cinco.

You mentioned Cinco doing damage modifiers to level ranges, and that he could apply that to classes as well. I think you have a good point there, but I think the imbalance in the game right now has a lot more to do with stats than it does just pure damage. I think dodge and crit play a very significant role across the level ranges, to the point that just fixing pure damage wouldn’t be a conclusive balance fix. Do you think it would? (I don’t say this out of any kind of spite, just purely wanting to hear your thoughts.)

Let me know what you think bro, and sorry for the late response. I appreciate you taking the time to address my comments.

[Burningdex]

Mages one shotting birds with drain.. seems familiar.. 56

[Bazinga!]

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.

[Bazinga!]

P.S: The fact that you're trying to balance PvP is appreciated, but I doubt that a big update like this would ever happen. I myself have attempted PvP balance, and each time the suggestions fade away. Even my suggestion for raising the skill cap, which takes literally three days at the most, is lost amidst the other threads.

On a side note, since you're genuinely interested in making PvP more balanced, I thought I'd get your opinion on one of my earlier suggestions. In a nutshell, you have base gear which has sub-standard stats, and you can enchant that gear with gemstones to make it better. The gemstones could be crit, hit, dodge, armor etc... There would be no "sets", and therefore no set bonuses either. The higher the ranking of your gear (as in elite, legendary etc.) the more slots it would have.

This way, the balance of PvP is completely dependent on the player. At first I thought this is far-fetched, but I started AL recently, and guess what - gem slots lol. The fact that I don't like AL PvP is a different matter. Only if AL and PL were combined.....

[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!

[Bazinga!]

I think we're coming from two different perspectives about balance.

First of all, I want to ask what balance is to you. From your post, I can gather that you want to reach a stage of 'universal equilibrium', without really knowing what this stage is. There's no set definition for complete balance. It's different for different players. We don't know the problem with PvP. We can say that so and so class at some level is lacking armor, but what would be the consequence of increasing that class' armor? New problems would keep arising. With so many variables at play, there's no knowing how one would affect the other. This process would be never-ending.

I view balance as the opportunity for any class to be able to beat any other class. And because of this, I tend to suggest ways to make PvP more player - dependent and less dependent on game mechanics. Theoretically, you could change the game mechanics so that nobody has any complaint whatsoever, but it is impractical. There's no way we can ever 'balance' PvP because people have the misconception that their class should be able to beat every other class when the fact is that each class has its own advantage and disadvantage in FFA, and is not suitable for a 1 v 1.

In short, I'd rather widen the range of possibilities for a player.