87 replies to this topic

[Pippi Longstocking]

I was reading this post on reddit and came upon some discussion in the comments about being able to change your skills and weapon sets when out of combat (IE. choosing different weapons for your sets and new utility/elites). Several individuals felt that they would prefer being able to do this when out of combat or in specific safe areas, in PvE and PvP.

While I feel that this is fine (great, even) in PvE/WvW, I do not want this to be an option in structured PvP. Being able to change your skills/weapons *during a match* trivializes the importance of individual and team build selection and eliminates metagaming completely. I'd argue that gimmicky or highly asymetrical builds will not work in this environment as they would get countered instantly - instead, everyone would start using more flexible setups.

The counterargument is that this would allow for more dynamic gameplay - much like class swapping in an FPS, an interesting comparison.

What do you guys think?

[Odynol]

This would be a terrible idea in Structured...actually, I could care less if it's in PuG play, but in Tournaments? No. Never.

[Greight]

If they allowed changing of skills and weapons after a match has started in Structured PvP it would be something akin to letting people pick new Champions or Heroes mid-game in LoL or Dota. It would turn into a massive "counter-pick the other team hard."

[benji]

I agree that this sort of mechanic is not good for a competitive game. What would be kinda neat is if you could swap weapons on-the-fly in combat, thus chaining together some pretty awesome moves! :]

[Deft]

I thought they already had this for pve? What's the current system? I agree it would be terrible for structured pvp, and I wouldn't even want it in wvw either.

[Gogims]

Any official words if this will be implemented in structural pvp?? Oh god I hope not

[Bridger]

I was reading this post on reddit and came upon some discussion in the comments about being able to change your skills and weapon sets when out of combat (IE. choosing different weapons for your sets and new utility/elites). Several individuals felt that they would prefer being able to do this when out of combat or in specific safe areas, in PvE and PvP.

While I feel that this is fine (great, even) in PvE/WvW, I do not want this to be an option in structured PvP. Being able to change your skills/weapons *during a match* trivializes the importance of individual and team build selection and eliminates metagaming completely.

That's exactly why I'd want it. I don't want to play Build Wars. In a structured PvP environment, I want the focus to be on the actions of the players on the field, and not have it be determined by who built the best build beforehand. That's just where my values lie for that kind of structured PvP. I compare it to a game of Magic: The Gathering. If i come to the game with Deck A, which is a pretty solid deck, but has a specific weakness, and you come with another deck that just happens to be the perfect counter to exploit my weakness, then the game is pretty much decided before we even play it. We get to go through the motions, but there's not much we can do to impact the outcome in this situation.

Compare that to a TF2 match (though I understand most competitive teams all run the same/similar builds, lets pretend we're talking about TFC or QWTF). If our team attacks with a specific set of classes, and your team is not setup for it, you can react on the fly to try and counter our attack. It's a much more fluid and input-based equation. What you do in the match, the choices you make, actually matter a lot more. The practice that you put into all the different possibilities matters. You cannot just study one single way of doing things, you need to be prepared for them all.

I'd argue that gimmicky or highly asymetrical builds will not work in this environment as they would get countered instantly - instead, everyone would start using more flexible setups.

I'd argue the opposite. In an environment where I cannot change out my weapons/skills, the only real option in a tournament environment is to play conservatively. High risk, high reward builds that rely on an opponent not having a specific counter are too risky to use in a tournament setting. Most everybody would settle on more flexible middle of the road builds. However, if you can catch an opponent unawares with a sudden change mid-match, now you're onto something which, again, happens in the match and not before. Pre-match practicing and training still matters a lot, as these dynamic changes could not happen unless you practice each of a variety of setups.

The counterargument is that this would allow for more dynamic gameplay - much like class swapping in an FPS, an interesting comparison.

What do you guys think?

Class switching in FPS, that's where I come from, it's what I'm most familiar with. Good topic for discussion

[okuRaku]

I think I agree with Bridger on this, maybe because I also come from an FPS background; also I recognize it's a complex issue with many valid viewpoints. I think another thing that allowing build switching does is reduce the effectiveness of "secret builds" which I notice ex-GW1 competitive players value highly. In my opinion this is a good thing, as I think that secret builds are kind of gimmicky and have a high risk factor. If you can change builds, you can at least try and react to an unanticipated build from your opponent. Similarly if they already knew what you were going to do you have options to change it up. From a spectator point of view, I'd rather see one team take a blow from a secret build and then have the ability to change "stances" and come back. If it's determined at the start that one team cannot win then it's not as entertaining to watch for me. Being able to react and implement totally new builds mid-game also increases the yomi complexity of the match, which is good I think (do we switch builds now, or wait till xx happens? Or will our opponent know that we're waiting for xx to happen so it's better to switch now? yomi layer 2 )

I know I may be venturing into an area a lot of our community isn't familiar with but this is actually also present in competitive fighting games and the massive divide between Japanese style competition and Western style. In Japanese style you are stuck with your character pick and typically they play fewer rounds whereas in Western style there are more rounds and the loser always has the option to "counter-pick" between them. Neither side is better or worse and there are certainly tons of supporters on either side. I think this debate is likely very similar.

Edit: wanted to add as a final thought that I also agree with a lot of Greight's points below. Mainly that being able to change weapons is already a pretty big thing, considering that weapons make up half your skills and utilities can be changed out of combat any time too as I understand it. So from that point of view, "builds" from GW1 are already totally adjustable in structured pvp, so I don't think it's necessary to ask for traits to be flexible as well. Edit2: Googling a bit indicates they may be disabling utility skill switching in SPvP

[Greight]

That's exactly why I'd want it. I don't want to play Build Wars. In a structured PvP environment, I want the focus to be on the actions of the players on the field, and not have it be determined by who built the best build beforehand. That's just where my values lie for that kind of structured PvP. I compare it to a game of Magic: The Gathering. If i come to the game with Deck A, which is a pretty solid deck, but has a specific weakness, and you come with another deck that just happens to be the perfect counter to exploit my weakness, then the game is pretty much decided before we even play it. We get to go through the motions, but there's not much we can do to impact the outcome in this situation.

As I recall, GW1 was heavily invested into "Build Wars". This is kind of getting rolled over into GW2. We saw it at PAX when the ArenaNet Team had some crazy builds for their characters and clearly knew the ins and outs of their professions.

Magic is an interesting example because, yes, there are decks that outright counter other types of decks (I would know, my friends always made decks just to counter each other). I think that is too extreme an example to apply to GW2. There is a lot of planning and practicing that goes into setting up legitimate competitive teams. Builds will be matters of pride for lots of people who play this game at a higher level.

That cannot simply be the end all be all of the match though from what I've seen. There are objectives outside of simply countering the other players. You can't simply counter all Theives by having X ability like you can in Magic. Sure, Team A might have the perfect build that counters Team B's professions and builds. They may clean them off the table yet if Team B doesn't get any kills and manages capture and hold enough points to get to 500 points first they still win.

Compare that to a TF2 match (though I understand most competitive teams all run the same/similar builds, lets pretend we're talking about TFC or QWTF). If our team attacks with a specific set of classes, and your team is not setup for it, you can react on the fly to try and counter our attack. It's a much more fluid and input-based equation. What you do in the match, the choices you make, actually matter a lot more. The practice that you put into all the different possibilities matters. You cannot just study one single way of doing things, you need to be prepared for them all.

I think weapon swapping handles this quite well enough without need to change everything about your character. Players can go from crazy burning-based greatsword damage to support staff. Sure, they can't go from super-duper burst everyone down in a second to full on support after dying but having someone sitting in spawn for 5 minutes getting new armor on and redoing their utilities doesn't feel that "dynamic".

I'd argue the opposite. In an environment where I cannot change out my weapons/skills, the only real option in a tournament environment is to play conservatively. High risk, high reward builds that rely on an opponent not having a specific counter are too risky to use in a tournament setting. Most everybody would settle on more flexible middle of the road builds. However, if you can catch an opponent unawares with a sudden change mid-match, now you're onto something which, again, happens in the match and not before. Pre-match practicing and training still matters a lot, as these dynamic changes could not happen unless you practice each of a variety of setups.

If this we're totally true, then StarCraft 2 would be insanely boring to watch as most people would do the same build over and over. I do admit there are players who do just that and practice it so it is perfect. Those games I find extremely boring. Even so, I do see lots of players who try really crazy stuff in tournament settings. The best example of this was at an MLG event Boxer was down 3 games to Idra. Boxer started doing insanely unorthodox builds that really threw Idra off his game and brought the series to 3-3. Sometimes the "counter" to the conservative play style is to do the crazy high-risk builds.

That was a lot

[Odynol]

As I recall, GW1 was heavily invested into "Build Wars". This is kind of getting rolled over into GW2. We saw it at PAX when the ArenaNet Team had some crazy builds for their characters and clearly knew the ins and outs of their professions.

Thing about this though is they were so far above and more familiar with the game than (obviously) the people going up against them you really can't draw any conclusions.

Other than that, I agree completely with the other stuff you said. Weapon swapping handles this fine, team play is more important than individual builds/team comp etc.

[Bamboocha]

I hope it's possible to switch skills during PvP matches because like you already said, it heavily reduces Build Wars. Build Wars can be interesting because there is also skill and knowledge about the opponent involved but luck is still a huge factor.
Even though Guild Wars 2 won't be as much build dependend as the original GW was it will probably still be possible to face counter builds even if it's small things like having a lot of blinds against very caster heavy enemys.

The only problem I see is with stuff like traps or speed buffs because I'm not sure if you are in combat after using skills like that. If you are not you would have to put the speed buff in your bar, use it and put out again everytime you are out of combat and walking somewhere which would be a little weird.

The timer for being out of combat just has to be high enough so you are not forced to switch skills all the time, but have the option after you died or after situations like winning a 1on1 at a capture point far away from everyone else.

Most players probably won't do it anyway but it's something you can master, so there are more things to work on and improve.

[Odynol]

I hope it's possible to switch skills during PvP matches because like you already said, it heavily reduces Build Wars. Build Wars can be interesting because there is also skill and knowledge about the opponent involved but luck is still a huge factor.
Even though Guild Wars 2 won't be as much build dependend as the original GW was it will probably still be possible to face counter builds even if it's small things like having a lot of blinds against very caster heavy enemys.

This encourages Build Wars. It'll cause people to say "Red's Thief is using this build, so I'll switch to this one to counter it". That's Build Wars to me. I'd rather go in not knowing what I'm up against and have to adapt my tactics as needed rather than just change a couple skills. Someone has a team full of people who can counter my guys' builds? Fine. We change tactics and win based on our team play, not on switching skills/builds

[Bamboocha]

This encourages Build Wars. It'll cause people to say "Red's Thief is using this build, so I'll switch to this one to counter it". That's Build Wars to me. I'd rather go in not knowing what I'm up against and have to adapt my tactics as needed rather than just change a couple skills. Someone has a team full of people who can counter my guys' builds? Fine. We change tactics and win based on our team play, not on switching skills/builds

Whatever you call it, it's not luck based. That's what I like about it. It gives you much more options to adapt your tactic and you don't find yourself in situations where you have a disadvantage because of unlucky skill choices. Building your character is a huge part of the game and in my opinion it would be great to even be a part of the things you have to be good at during a match.
This is very advanced anyway, I really don't think anyone will do this very often in the first months because you probably won't just face 5 warriors where a counter skill is very obvious. Every team will probably be kinda balanced. Maybe you sometimes have a specific enemy you fight very often like the player who uses the trebuchet on BoK you can pick very specific counter skills but I don't see why you shouldn't have an advantage when you know who you are fighting and the person you are fighting doesn't.

[Odynol]

Whatever you call it, it's not luck based. That's what I like about it. It gives you much more options to adapt your tactic and you don't find yourself in situations where you have a disadvantage because of unlucky skill choices. Building your character is a huge part of the game and in my opinion it would be great to even be a part of the things you have to be good at during a match.
This is very advanced anyway, I really don't think anyone will do this very often in the first months because you probably won't just face 5 warriors where a counter skill is very obvious. Every team will probably be kinda balanced. Maybe you sometimes have a specific enemy you fight very often like the player who uses the trebuchet on BoK you can pick very specific counter skills but I don't see why you shouldn't have an advantage when you know who you are fighting and the person you are fighting doesn't.

But changing your build specifically to counter another build is Build Wars. The ability to switch out your skills whenever you wish simply because you're afraid someone can negate your build is not a sign of skill in my book. I prefer the ability to realize they can counter you and then adapt to this situation and pull off a win anyway. The better team play will always win out over having the "better" build. And as far as weapons go, you have either 2 sets, 4 attunements or multiple kits. That's enough for you to be able to adapt your 1st 5 skills to any situation.

[Bamboocha]

But changing your build specifically to counter another build is Build Wars. The ability to switch out your skills whenever you wish simply because you're afraid someone can negate your build is not a sign of skill in my book. I prefer the ability to realize they can counter you and then adapt to this situation and pull off a win anyway. The better team play will always win out over having the "better" build. And as far as weapons go, you have either 2 sets, 4 attunements or multiple kits. That's enough for you to be able to adapt your 1st 5 skills to any situation.

I don't mind if you call it Build Wars, it's just not how I see the meaning of the term. I don't see why it's not skill to choose the right skills depending on the situation. Being afraid of a counter build doesn't mean you are bad, it means you are smart. If you are aware that you have a disadvantage you obviously try to change that.

Of course you can still beat someone with a disadvantage and I'm sure the difference won't be that big in GW2 but even if the odds are just 49:51 due to skill choices and you can change that to 50:50 by reacting smart it's a way to get rid of luck and add an additional element of skill.

[Odynol]

I don't mind if you call it Build Wars, it's just not how I see the meaning of the term. I don't see why it's not skill to choose the right skills depending on the situation. Being afraid of a counter build doesn't mean you are bad, it means you are smart. If you are aware that you have a disadvantage you obviously try to change that.

Of course you can still beat someone with a disadvantage and I'm sure the difference won't be that big in GW2 but even if the odds are just 49:51 due to skill choices and you can change that to 50:50 by reacting smart it's a way to get rid of luck and add an additional element of skill.

Anyone can learn other classes and recognize builds and swap weapons accordingly. Truly skilled players won't do that. You don't get to see the other team's build so it's not like you'll ever run into a team specifically built to beat you.

You choose your skills and weapons before the match, you should be responsible for that. You don't plan either yourself or your team for a situation? It's your responsibility to come up with something else. You lose all accountability for your actions by being able to change builds since instead of having to actually come up with a new plan/approach you can just change your skills. If this were implemented it would severely cut down on tactics used as people would just say "ok, we can't beat them this way with this build, so instead of figuring out another way to win, we'll just do it with a different build"

The ability to change builds mid match takes away any need to actually put a lot of thought and time into your own unique build and encourages cookie cutter builds. As said by someone above, this is like saying it's ok to switch LoL Champions mid match.

The way it is is fair and balanced. You choose your build before the match. If there's someone in there whose build counters your's or your build is ill equipped for a certain situation, you have to adapt your tactics/play as a team.

[Bamboocha]

Anyone can learn other classes and recognize builds and swap weapons accordingly. Truly skilled players won't do that. You don't get to see the other team's build so it's not like you'll ever run into a team specifically built to beat you.

You choose your skills and weapons before the match, you should be responsible for that. You don't plan either yourself or your team for a situation? It's your responsibility to come up with something else. You lose all accountability for your actions by being able to change builds since instead of having to actually come up with a new plan/approach you can just change your skills. If this were implemented it would severely cut down on tactics used as people would just say "ok, we can't beat them this way with this build, so instead of figuring out another way to win, we'll just do it with a different build"

The ability to change builds mid match takes away any need to actually put a lot of thought and time into your own unique build and encourages cookie cutter builds. As said by someone above, this is like saying it's ok to switch LoL Champions mid match.

The way it is is fair and balanced. You choose your build before the match. If there's someone in there whose build counters your's or your build is ill equipped for a certain situation, you have to adapt your tactics/play as a team.

I'm sure you don't have to worry that someone get's wiped and comes back with a counter build that completely stomps the enemy. The skills aren't designed to have crazy ways to heavily counter something unless a team runs something insane like 5 warriors. In most situations you don't even know who you are fighting soon since there will very rarely be 5v5 situations. So general teamplay and skillfull use of your skills will definitely be the major factors. Changing skills in the game is just a very minor thing but it brings something back that in my opinion was so great about GW but without the luck involved.

I don't really understand why you see changing tactics as skill, but changing skills as something you just do. You won't just fight 1on1 against the same person all the time so adapting skills isn't that obvious and you can also make bad choices. Also, changing skills would often involve changing tactics. For example you might want to have a different build when the neutral monsters on FoN are about to spawn, if they do actually respawn but I'm sure there are other situations like that.

Comparing to LoL, it's more like changing your runes and masteries after you know what the enemy is playing which you can in draft mode. Without being able to do it, it's like not being able to change runes and masteries after knowing the enemy champions which wouldn't be a huge a problem but there is a reason for being able to do it.

About "the way it is", I always thought being able to change skills during the match is the way it is. I've never seen it confirmed but when I looked it up they always said you can change skills and weapons out of combat so I assumed that's the way it works. I think I've also seen someone changing weapons in the inventory a while after the game started while walking to a cap point.


It seems like a lot of people want builds to be the smallest aspect to winning, but I think it adds something awesome to the game. It was the same in Guild Wars, some guilds just played the same build over and over again, because it was hard to master and hard to counter so they didn't have to think that much about their build while others played crazy builds where you had to think about how to counter it. So the ones who just wanted to fight their opponent in a fair fight without disadvantages were mad because they were the most skilled in what they did but didn't win anyway because "Build Wars" decided who won the game.
I guess it's the majority who doesn't like that midgame build wars or however this should be called but I think this is so advanced anyway that no one will have a problem without doing it besides on very high level play which doesn't even exist in the first months.

[benji]

Bridger has completely swayed me to one side on this (I was indecisive previously). What sold me was TF2, because in a match when someone off-classes to Heavy you can feel comfortable betting that the other team will roll a Sniper to quickly shut that down. Being able to swap weapons like this allows teams to have this dynamic synergy that you see all the time in TF2 matches (which is why they are incredibly fun to watch).

It's not necessarily build wars that will be going it.. I think it'll be more like: The team with the best dynamic synergy and ability to strategically control fights will win.

I'll mention this as well, but with all of the customization we have it's going to take an incredible amount of knowledge to actually be able to look at any (1) player and see how he's running to be able to swap accordingly.

[Odynol]

Bridger has completely swayed me to one side on this (I was indecisive previously). What sold me was TF2, because in a match when someone off-classes to Heavy you can feel comfortable betting that the other team will roll a Sniper to quickly shut that down. Being able to swap weapons like this allows teams to have this dynamic synergy that you see all the time in TF2 matches (which is why they are incredibly fun to watch).

It's not necessarily build wars that will be going it.. I think it'll be more like: The team with the best dynamic synergy and ability to strategically control fights will win.

I'll mention this as well, but with all of the customization we have it's going to take an incredible amount of knowledge to actually be able to look at any (1) player and see how he's running to be able to swap accordingly.

I dunno, sitting in the spawn and taking the time to swap out skills/traits/attributes/gear seems a lot less dynamic than changing up your strategy as you see what the other team is doing. Switching builds is just a way to avoid having to change strats. You can say "Strat A didn't work with this build, maybe I should do it with a different 1" versus "Maybe I should approach it differently"

[benji]

I dunno, sitting in the spawn and taking the time to swap out skills/traits/attributes/gear seems a lot less dynamic than changing up your strategy as you see what the other team is doing. Switching builds is just a way to avoid having to change strats. You can say "Strat A didn't work with this build, maybe I should do it with a different 1" versus "Maybe I should approach it differently"

From what I can see all that was said about it was that you can change it out of combat, which means you don't have to just sit in spawn. The thing is that at a high-caliber professional level if (2) teams face-off and one happens to have the weaker build, then in most cases you will lose. I know there's room for personal error or miscalculations that will allow a disadvantaged team to rally forward, but the odds are initially against them. Just like what Bridger discussed with Magic.

The above situation only applies to top-tier teams where you really don't see a lot of the noob/novice mistakes. Lets just say you can't swap in combat and we pick X build and our enemy has Y build. We find out that they have Y build and know that our X is inferior, but because the enemy team kinda blows we know that we will have an opportunity to step forward and counter this disadvantage.

I would rather not play the game where you can have a crappy build or composition compared to the enemy team, but just because the other team makes more mistakes you may win. I would much rather the progression of the game roll and flow as the styles and mechanics change, because seeing a team wholly adapt to what another team is doing really is a true test of skill.


EDIT:
I would also have to say that changing builds and team synergy is a definitive change of strategy. You are changing and adapting to what the other team is doing and from there you can force the hand of your enemy and see how they deal with the change. The thing I love about this is that I really think it'll prevent FOTM play-styles and allow you to be very dynamic in-game, which is always incredibly entertaining to watch.

How does not being able to change your build/weapons/synergy when your team happened to choose an inferior build/weapons/strategy give you fair chance to adapt and ultimately have a chance to win. Yeah I know underdogs and disadvantaged teams win all the time in competitive E-Sports, but I would rather see games played this way:

The team that can show the most relative skill in adapting and controlling the game will have the upper-hand. Being able to master this aspect of the game really takes practice, so there's a definitive amount of skill that other will see when you are able to handle everything the enemy throws at you. If your team can handle this pressure better then your opponent, then you will probably win. There are other factors like: personal skill and error that throw in an entire new set of challenges as well.