14 replies to this topic

[Bridger]

Hi,

In order to view the post in this forum please register or login

[Treue]

Whatever happened to meaningful choice in a game. Since when should you be able to be so flexible. They are already putting their best foot forward to get rid of said trinity (which I'm happy to see). How much more flexible do you need your group to be. If everyone ends up being able to do any/everything on the fly that their class can do; what is the point?

Imagine a game of chess. Each piece does what it does best, but is limited; by the number of those pieces on the board and by their mobility (ie 8 pawns that can only move forward, diagonal to steal pieces, or completely change the game if they are allowed to slip by; being able to become any non-king piece). Without the limitation they lose their uniqueness.

I believe this same principle takes hold in many games. Even more so in MMOs where many players want to try to stand out among the rest.

[monkeyfonics]

I sincerely hope that the only places you can respec are capital cities.

[okuRaku]

Whatever happened to meaningful choice in a game. Since when should you be able to be so flexible. They are already putting their best foot forward to get rid of said trinity (which I'm happy to see). How much more flexible do you need your group to be. If everyone ends up being able to do any/everything on the fly that their class can do; what is the point?

Imagine a game of chess. Each piece does what it does best, but is limited; by the number of those pieces on the board and by their mobility (ie 8 pawns that can only move forward, diagonal to steal pieces, or completely change the game if they are allowed to slip by; being able to become any non-king piece). Without the limitation they lose their uniqueness.

I believe this same principle takes hold in many games. Even more so in MMOs where many players want to try to stand out among the rest.

Chess is a perfectly symmetric game. This is a discussion about Symmetry vs Asymmetry. By saying GW2 should use principals from Chess you would argue that everyone starts with exactly the same skills traits professions and weapons. I don't think that is what anyone wants, because frankly a bit of assymetry adds variables and flavor, and of course the feeling that your build is your own and your team's strategy is unique.

If you want to use the Chess example, imagine if a part of chess was choosing which pieces you'd bring to the board, and then of those particular moves that each piece could make. That game would be assymetric because the sides are not even at the start and there is a large amount of planning and strategy in pre-game phases. If you could make some minor adjustments after you see your opponent's choices you could make the game less asymetric by giving players the ability to get out of a situation where their pre-game intuition failed them; some believe this makes the skill cap higher by giving more choices, some believe it makes the skill cap lower by raising the power of the choice itself.

The part of Bridger (and my) viewpoint that people seem to be missing is that the power of the choice itself would not raise to the point that the other side of the debate insists. That side requires the power of the choice to be very high for arguments such as "why should I get better at the game when I can just switch utilities and auto-win?" and "The game would devolve into a constant merry-go-round of counterpicking". What we're saying is that your utility choice shouldn't have that much power. Your utility choice should not turn your profession into rock and then if someone presents paper you could switch your utilities and now you are scissors. Utilities are just that, utilities that help out in minor (albiet meaningful) ways, not profession defining super powers. More like an FPS, where what you bring to the table isn't as important as what you do once you're there, and through teamwork and smart in-game strategy you can make use of utilities (or weapons, classes in fps) to outplay your opponent.

Since they are (I believe anyway) just that, minor things, even if you can't change them I don't think it will be the end of the world or anything. The game will still be fine and super fun. I simply present this side of the debate to say that suggesting that our view makes the game have no point is a bit unfair.

Edit: And I feel obligated to say, I already promised once I'd respectfully withdraw from this discussion so I apologize for breaking that promise!

[monkeyfonics]

Chess is a perfectly symmetric game. This is a discussion about Symmetry vs Asymmetry. By saying GW2 should use principals from Chess you would argue that everyone starts with exactly the same skills traits professions and weapons. I don't think that is what anyone wants, because frankly a bit of assymetry adds variables and flavor, and of course the feeling that your build is your own and your team's strategy is unique.

If you want to use the Chess example, imagine if a part of chess was choosing which pieces you'd bring to the board, and then of those particular moves that each piece could make. That game would be assymetric because the sides are not even at the start and there is a large amount of planning and strategy in pre-game phases. If you could make some minor adjustments after you see your opponent's choices you could make the game less asymetric by giving players the ability to get out of a situation where their pre-game intuition failed them; some believe this makes the skill cap higher by giving more choices, some believe it makes the skill cap lower by raising the power of the choice itself.

The part of Bridger (and my) viewpoint that people seem to be missing is that the power of the choice itself would not raise to the point that the other side of the debate insists. That side requires the power of the choice to be very high for arguments such as "why should I get better at the game when I can just switch utilities and auto-win?" and "The game would devolve into a constant merry-go-round of counterpicking". What we're saying is that your utility choice shouldn't have that much power. Your utility choice should not turn your profession into rock and then if someone presents paper you could switch your utilities and now you are scissors. Utilities are just that, utilities that help out in minor (albiet meaningful) ways, not profession defining super powers. More like an FPS, where what you bring to the table isn't as important as what you do once you're there, and through teamwork and smart in-game strategy you can make use of utilities (or weapons, classes in fps) to outplay your opponent.

Since they are (I believe anyway) just that, minor things, even if you can't change them I don't think it will be the end of the world or anything. The game will still be fine and super fun. I simply present this side of the debate to say that suggesting that our view makes the game have no point is a bit unfair.

Edit: And I feel obligated to say, I already promised once I'd respectfully withdraw from this discussion so I apologize for breaking that promise!

While you may not want utilities to be that meaningful, right now they appear to be totally game-breaking. Because they are active choices, I would say are just as meaningful in the heat of battle than your traits, if not more so. The Necromancer utilities for instance are totally game changing. Facing a Buff-heavy comp? Corrupt Boon and Epidemic. Bursty Melee comp? Spectral Armor and Well of Darkness. Facing off against another pro Conditionmancer? Plague Signet and Well of Power.

I believe utility spells will be enormous (especially if they leave them as they are now), and their well-timed use will most certainly decide many battles.

[Bridger]

I sincerely hope that the only places you can respec are capital cities.

It wouldn't really matter, since you can fast travel to any city instantly. Doesn't matter where the trainers are located.

While you may not want utilities to be that meaningful, right now they appear to be totally game-breaking. Because they are active choices, I would say are just as meaningful in the heat of battle than your traits, if not more so. The Necromancer utilities for instance are totally game changing. Facing a Buff-heavy comp? Corrupt Boon and Epidemic. Bursty Melee comp? Spectral Armor and Well of Darkness. Facing off against another pro Conditionmancer? Plague Signet and Well of Power. I believe utility spells will be enormous (especially if they leave them as they are now), and their well-timed use will most certainly decide many battles.

While the utilities are definitely very powerful, can we not agree that ideally all utilities will be equally game changing? Is that not the idea of balance? Changing from one "powerful" ability to another can't raise or lower your power level a lot unless the game is quite unbalanced.

Here's another example I posted to reddit in order to explain why locked slot skills would reduce meaningful choices:

I go into a structured PvP match as a warrior who is tasked to hold the center point with one other player. There's also a roaming thief who will support us in the center if we need him. Since I will be working closely with up to two other people I decide to bring Battle Standard as my elite skill. As we start the match, however, it becomes clear that the necro who was supposed to guard our rightmost point is getting countered hard. The best thing to do is switch the warrior with the necro. However, if we do try to adjust our strategy and inteligently work against our opponents, I am now punished because my elite skill is basically worthless. My role has changed from "support the middle and the allies there" to "stall and hold a point by yourself."
If I was locked into my utility skills for the whole match, I would never equip Battle Standard as my elite skill, because it will only work under a certain condition (fighting with allies). If my role ever changes, it can become useless. Locking slot skills effectively kills the viability of conditional slot skills, in favor of generalized "always useful" abilities.

Allowing slot skills to be changable (outside of combat) creates a more fluid environment, where teams can try to react to what's going on, instead of sticking to a set plan. Some people put a much higher value on pre-game role/skill selection, and a much lower value on execution/adaptation. I'm the other way around. I value being able to respond to and predict the opponent's movements. Because if so much of the game is based on choices made before the match, why don't we just compare builds and decide the game from there? Do we truly want a system where decision making during the game is minimized?

[TTred]

I go into a structured PvP match as a warrior who is tasked to hold the center point with one other player. There's also a roaming thief who will support us in the center if we need him. Since I will be working closely with up to two other people I decide to bring Battle Standard as my elite skill. As we start the match, however, it becomes clear that the necro who was supposed to guard our rightmost point is getting countered hard. The best thing to do is switch the warrior with the necro. However, if we do try to adjust our strategy and inteligently work against our opponents, I am now punished because my elite skill is basically worthless. My role has changed from "support the middle and the allies there" to "stall and hold a point by yourself."
If I was locked into my utility skills for the whole match, I would never equip Battle Standard as my elite skill, because it will only work under a certain condition (fighting with allies). If my role ever changes, it can become useless. Locking slot skills effectively kills the viability of conditional slot skills, in favor of generalized "always useful" abilities.

Allowing slot skills to be changable (outside of combat) creates a more fluid environment, where teams can try to react to what's going on, instead of sticking to a set plan. Some people put a much higher value on pre-game role/skill selection, and a much lower value on execution/adaptation. I'm the other way around. I value being able to respond to and predict the opponent's movements. Because if so much of the game is based on choices made before the match, why don't we just compare builds and decide the game from there? Do we truly want a system where decision making during the game is minimized?

Great points. I was thinking along this path as well. Removing the ability to adapt to the situation fully, e.g. swapping out utilities/elites, eliminates a compelling strategic aspect for PvP.

What about traits? Are we able to swap out major traits? There's a certain synergy that needs to be maintained between utilities and major traits. If that's not taken into consideration you run the same risk of certain major traits not being taken because it doesn't benefit multiple utility builds.

[Treue]

Chess is a perfectly symmetric game...

I should have clarified, I had only tried to use this as an example. I was trying to get across the idea that a smart amount of limitations provides uniqueness within each class.

I go into a structured PvP match as a warrior who is tasked to hold the center point with one other player. There's also a roaming thief who will support us in the center if we need him. Since I will be working closely with up to two other people I decide to bring Battle Standard as my elite skill. As we start the match, however, it becomes clear that the necro who was supposed to guard our rightmost point is getting countered hard. The best thing to do is switch the warrior with the necro. However, if we do try to adjust our strategy and inteligently work against our opponents, I am now punished because my elite skill is basically worthless. My role has changed from "support the middle and the allies there" to "stall and hold a point by yourself."
If I was locked into my utility skills for the whole match, I would never equip Battle Standard as my elite skill, because it will only work under a certain condition (fighting with allies). If my role ever changes, it can become useless. Locking slot skills effectively kills the viability of conditional slot skills, in favor of generalized "always useful" abilities.

Allowing slot skills to be changable (outside of combat) creates a more fluid environment, where teams can try to react to what's going on, instead of sticking to a set plan. Some people put a much higher value on pre-game role/skill selection, and a much lower value on execution/adaptation. I'm the other way around. I value being able to respond to and predict the opponent's movements. Because if so much of the game is based on choices made before the match, why don't we just compare builds and decide the game from there? Do we truly want a system where decision making during the game is minimized?

Now we are changing gears if you are talking about swapping out utilities. I was under the impression that this was about respecing traits; not swapping in and out utilities as needed. If its about swapping in and out utilities, I agree you should be able to do that. But respecing your whole trait tree at anytime to make it work with those utilities? I would not agree with currently (because who knows what I might learn from actually playing the game haha).

[Bridger]

I should have clarified, I had only tried to use this as an example. I was trying to get across the idea that a smart amount of limitations provides uniqueness within each class.



Now we are changing gears if you are talking about swapping out utilities. I was under the impression that this was about respecing traits; not swapping in and out utilities as needed. If its about swapping in and out utilities, I agree you should be able to do that. But respecing your whole trait tree at anytime to make it work with those utilities? I would not agree with currently (because who knows what I might learn from actually playing the game haha).

I started the conversation in show 21 by asking "what should be changable in SPvP." Essentially opening the floor to all possibilities. We eventually all agreed that traits should be locked, weapons should be locked, and the only thing we were torn on were major traits and slot skills. I'm in favor of slot skills changeable anytime out of combat, and I also am almost as strongly in favor of being able to change major traits as well (because they are so often tied to utility skills).

[monkeyfonics]

I suppose the idea of having an entire meta game based on dropping combat to swap traits and/or utility spells really doesn't appeal to me. Skillful use of the tools you have, countered or no, should lead to the outcome of victory or defeat, not changing your set up to counter your counter.

There will be safe, tried-and-true builds that function well under most circumstances, and then their will be some "gimmicky" high risk, high reward builds that, under the right conditions and against the intended victims will dominate, but against others will be dominated in turn. Sometimes you roll the dice and on that dangerous build, and everything goes in your favor. Other times it doesn't, but that risk is all part of the fun.

[Bridger]

I suppose the idea of having an entire meta game based on dropping combat to swap traits and/or utility spells really doesn't appeal to me. Skillful use of the tools you have, countered or no, should lead to the outcome of victory or defeat, not changing your set up to counter your counter.

I honestly don't see anyone doing that. Leaving for long enough to drop "combat" could easily lose your team 10-20 points. If you're losing a fight, it might be wise to flee in order to regain health, but don't you think somebody is going to try to finish you off? I'm guessing most builds will feature some form of slow/stun, and if you're running away mostly dead, your opponent is going to try to stop you, no matter what your motivation is.

There will be safe, tried-and-true builds that function well under most circumstances, and then their will be some "gimmicky" high risk, high reward builds that, under the right conditions and against the intended victims will dominate, but against others will be dominated in turn. Sometimes you roll the dice and on that dangerous build, and everything goes in your favor. Other times it doesn't, but that risk is all part of the fun.

All the people claiming they want a "competitive" game are saying "NO RNG! Get rid of randomness! Let skill decide!" Yet, at the same time argue that letting random luck determine the effectiveness of a gimmicky build is better than letting a player's judgement/adaptability determine the outcome of a match. Sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.

[monkeyfonics]

I honestly don't see anyone doing that. Leaving for long enough to drop "combat" could easily lose your team 10-20 points. If you're losing a fight, it might be wise to flee in order to regain health, but don't you think somebody is going to try to finish you off? I'm guessing most builds will feature some form of slow/stun, and if you're running away mostly dead, your opponent is going to try to stop you, no matter what your motivation is.



All the people claiming they want a "competitive" game are saying "NO RNG! Get rid of randomness! Let skill decide!" Yet, at the same time argue that letting random luck determine the effectiveness of a gimmicky build is better than letting a player's judgement/adaptability determine the outcome of a match. Sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.

I didn't mean running from a fight when you feel you're countered, swapping and coming back. I was picturing finishing a fight, realizing you were countered then swapping utilities and traits and coming back with your new counter build. Whether you swapped at your spawn point or at a node you captured is irrelevant.

Personally, I've never argued against a little bit of RNG. I think it's healthy for a gaming environment, as it keeps things from getting predictable. Too much is obviously detrimental to E-sports (Stunherald and Mace Spec rogues from The Burning Crusade arena come to mind as particularly obnoxious) but being able to react to a random factor is something that I would argue is absolutely a mark of true skill. However, if that reaction is to trade out the tools you have for something that counters your opponent, then there is really no skill involved.

The one argument I can see for swapping traits or utilities in a PvP environment would be that the tools you bring to your team are redundant with what your teammates have brought. In that case, a warm up period before each match could allow everyone to discuss what roles they were focusing on, what utilities they were bringing, and switch accordingly.

[Bridger]

I didn't mean running from a fight when you feel you're countered, swapping and coming back. I was picturing finishing a fight, realizing you were countered then swapping utilities and traits and coming back with your new counter build. Whether you swapped at your spawn point or at a node you captured is irrelevant.

See that's exactly what I want to happen. That adds to the value of mid-match judgement and experience. It raises the skill ceiling. For example: If I'm a player who's played a ton of games, and I know every skill in the game, I've practiced for thousands of hours on many different builds. What makes me different from somebody who grabs the same build I'm using off of the internet and gets really good with just that build? If slot switching is allowed, I (with my extra experience and practice) can judge much better how and when to change my slot skills and surprise an opponent, or adapt to a situation and switch roles (like in the warrior example). If slot switching is not allowed, the difference between me and someone who just picked and stuck to a single build is minimal, and the difference between a good player and a great player isn't as big.

Personally, I've never argued against a little bit of RNG. I think it's healthy for a gaming environment, as it keeps things from getting predictable. Too much is obviously detrimental to E-sports (Stunherald and Mace Spec rogues from The Burning Crusade arena come to mind as particularly obnoxious) but being able to react to a random factor is something that I would argue is absolutely a mark of true skill. However, if that reaction is to trade out the tools you have for something that counters your opponent, then there is really no skill involved.

I agree that some randomness introduces healthy caution and judgement calls. I disagree that it is as simple as "pick counter skills and win." The "best" utility/healing/elite skills for any given moment are going to change based upon: How many opponent's you are fighting, what their profession is, if you are attacking or defending, who you are fighting with, how mobile you need to be, how mobile your enemy is, the enemy's slot skill choices, the enemies major trait choices, your own, and your opponent's weapon/attribute choices. There's no such thing as a "simple counter" when you have this much variability.

Even if there was, I haven't seen a set of skills that I would call a "hard counter" to any other set of utility skills. Some skills neutralize others, but for something to be a hard counter it has to give you a significant advantage, not just neutralize the enemies advantage. The reason no slot skill build is a hard counter is because the majority of the time the skills you are going to be using are your weapon skills. No matter what you do to your slot skills, you always have your weapon skills. That's 10 skills (generally) on lower cooldowns that can affect the game.

[okuRaku]

Speaking of traits.. Really cool breakdown / infographic someone posted over on r/guildwars2 :



From the author:

Explanation
First, I assumed that there is no way anyone would want to put a number of points into a trait line that is not divisible by 5. This is because you unlock traits at increments of 5, and as the interview yesterday showed, the stat points you get from the trait system really aren't big enough to worry about.
Given this, I spread out the 70 trait points that you have available at max level among anywhere from 3 to 5 trait lines. I was non-specific as to which lines are being filled, so each of these combinations can in fact be used many different way by each individual profession; ie, 30-30-10 in lines A, B, and C is different from the same combination in lines C, D, and E, but in this chart they're both filed under the same combination.
All yellow combinations have 0 trait lines with an odd number of points in them, which means they maximize the number of major traits you have available (7 majors, 7 minors). The green combinations have 2 trait lines with odd numbers, and you therefore get 6 majors and 8 minors. The blue combinations have 4 odd numbers, and you therefore get only 5 majors but 9 minors.
The result of this is that there are, theoretically, 32 completely different combinations for how you can place your trait points, and that is just talking about distributions, not even the specific lines you're speccing into.
[edit1]
There's an error in line 14. It should be 25 - 25 - 20 - 0 - 0
One more thing I noticed: you must have, at bare minimum, one trait line with 15 points, and one with 10. It seems like, when theorycrafting, we should start by looking at the first 5 "fixed" traits in two different lines, and then add points from there to grab the majors or minors that complement the build.

[Bridger]

I really liked that breakdown of the trait lines. My guess is that the only real viable options will be the yellow (0 Odd) combinations listed there. Trading a major trait for a minor trait doesn't seem like it would be a good idea most of the time. Even then, though, there are 6 combinations of trait distribution numbers, all of which can be split over the individual trait lines in multiple ways. Compare that to WoW which only lets you do 31/11/0, 11/31/0, 0/11/31, 0/31/11, 31/0/11, or 11/0/31. Only 6 options, which cannot be adjusted any further. Quite a bit more variety.