Balance idea: let traits matter, supporting build diversity

Traits allow to change how a profession is played, what a profession can do.

I enjoy playing many different builds with my main profession.

Lately, PvP got many trait splits between game modes and I feel like some of them was exaggerated and really not needed.

Greatly reducing the strength of traits, makes every build more similar to each other, and can reduce the number of viable builds.

Recently the power coefficients of every profession got heavily nerfed (PvP and WvW). That made bunker builds over performing and ArenaNet nerfed traits. Why not nerf PvP amulets instead?

For PvP, maybe several splits could be reverted or reduced this way. Traits would still matter, making the game more fun, making every profession and every build more unique.

Some class would need adjustments, but anyway we are in a situation where almost everything needs to be adjusted. So, I feel like it is the right time for a similar change.

@"Black Storm.6974" said:Greatly reducing the strength of traits, makes every build more similar to each other, and can reduce the number of viable builds.

On the contrary, the more power traits have, the fewer viable builds there are.

As the difference between the "Optimal" set of traits, and less optimal ones becomes far more pronounced.

The weaker traits are, the more viable builds exist because of the less significant an impact using sub-optimal traits has on your ability.

Of course, weak traits does lead to homogenization, which can be quite stale and uninspiring.

Hence, more powerful traits that are balanced against equally powerful alternatives provides more interesting build choice. It just is much harder to achieve a balance that is close enough to make it a choice as opposed "This option is just better" (Which honestly, is often the case as is due to a lot of garbo or highly niche traits...)

@"Taril.8619" said:Hence, more powerful traits that are balanced against equally powerful alternatives provides more interesting build choice. It just is much harder to achieve a balance that is close enough to make it a choice as opposed "This option is just better" (Which honestly, is often the case as is due to a lot of garbo or highly niche traits...)

Ya pretty much. There are too many terrible redundant traits that prevent diversity from truly coming about, and in effect has repercussions on bringing about true balance.

The way I like to look at the issue is through the lenses of autonomous agents trying to achieve autonomous goals. The goals are set for what the mode demands for. If not enough build options exist for the agents to achieve the goals, then too many builds fall by the way side as “unviable.” Thus if the traits are absolute garbage and have no real impact, then you can see how this problem arises.

There are a few more steps though. I believe that it’s not just the power or usefulness of the traits, but rather how much these traits and abilities effect the way in which the class is played. This is what you can think of as uniqueness (which is what we want, heterogeneous groupings rather than homogeneous groupings.) and this uniqueness is essentially how these abilities effect the way in which the class is played.

For example, if necromancer (or any class you like) had a trait that allows it to fulfill the goals of being a viable group healer, then we’ve birthed a new build option for necromancer. One such example I like to give is a trait like this:“your healing utility now effects 5 targets”

Just a simple trait like this changes the way necromancer is played drastically and allows it to fulfill an autonomous goal in a unique way. Imagine if all traits could drastically alter the way a class is played, so long as they can achieve their autonomous goals, then everything becomes more viable...without even really touching the power curve. It just has to provide uniqueness (heterogeneous grouping)

Anyway there’s a bit more to it, mostly having to do with scale invariance which is another topic. But ya your pretty much spot on with your analysis