User talk:Raine Valen/Mass Balance/Significant People

Index

General Discussion

Shard isn't capable of fixing this game. Dark Morphon(contribs) 12:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who says "Hexes are just fucking stupid" probably could, in fact, improve the state of balance in the game.

Unrelatedly, that's not really relevant to the page. Raine - talk 01:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You talk about improving, I talk about fixing. Random number buffs and nerfs don't fix the game, you have to go deeper for that. Shard hasn't shown that in any of his "balances", they nerf random problems but thats about it. Dark Morphon(contribs) 11:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That depends on your point of view. Raine thinks GW's an ok game, that needs a few tweaks. You dislike it to its core and thus think it needs to be fixed. It's no use arguing about semantics though. 145.94.74.23 17:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree with you that most self-appointed balancers could 'balance' the game well, except that it would stop being Guild Wars at that point, and just be how they believe the game should be. 145.94.74.23 22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't say I dislike GW, there are just a few mechanics that seriously need some nerfing. Playing against things that are practically uncounterable is no fun at all. Hexes for example, while being a potentially nice addition to the game, are way too powerful. It's ridiculous that a non-elite hex can have 2 recharge while most good hex removals have somewhere in the range of twelve. That's just an example of what truly needs fixing and that won't happen through random single skill 'fixes'. Hexes simply will remain a problem unless there is something done about it and the same goes for chants, shouts, to a lesser extent damage spells, Rangers having over the top utility and a lot of other things. Now let's get to this page. You say people like Shard can fix this game. But looking at their 'balance' pages, I see no more than single skill fixes. At the same time, they say that a lot of things are problematic (some listed above). Therefore, they can only see problems but not fix them or they look like that way. Also, I think 90% of these "significant" people are just the people that scream the loudest. Dark Morphon(contribs) 17:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So how would you judge whether a suggestion is feasible or not? The example you gave is of course clear, but what if it's not that easy? Your project seems to has only singe skill changes which, while in themselves they might be good, will not fix the game or are too small a part to be judged properly. I don't think the system you made up is practical. Balancing seems very subjective to me. Dark Morphon(contribs) 10:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

She doesn't have to be "right", she just has to wield authority with an iron fist. Democracies are great for maintaining the status quo, but you need a dictator to implement real change. Misery 12:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very subjective. When I changed Mark of Protection, I made it into something that I wanted it to be. When I change Faintheartedness, it'll be changed into something I want it to be. Every skill, essentially, will be changed to be exactly as the poster of the suggestion wants it to be. Of course, if something's ludicrous, then the talk page says hai - while each suggestion is generated on an individual basis, balancing them will be, in fact, a community effort, if the community elects such.

But like you said, whether or not something is feasible is purely discretionary. If I can't think of a good reason why something would break the game, though, then I'll most likely leave it. Like Misery so elegantly put it, I'm a dictator. That doesn't necessarily mean that I plan to be a Mussolini; I herd Caesar was a pretty good guy.

The game is made of skills, equipment, maps, and the mechanics on which the previous three work. Any of those are allowed to be changed. If you meant to say that the game cannot be balanced by changing those things alone, then I ask for reasoning, because it seems to me that proper changes to all of those things would, in fact, balance the game. For example, if hexes are, by nature, broken, then one shouldn't change individual hexes - they should go to the "mechanics" section labeled "hexes". If AoE is broken on HA maps, one shouldn't change every AoE skill - they should change HA maps. If every skill is broken when used with a scythe, then scythes should be changed, not every melee attack skill. Does that make sense? Raine - talk 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was exactly my point. Dark Morphon(contribs) 14:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)