Class struggle to bring new players into the game(PvE) - Page 3 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Professions

Class struggle to bring new players into the game(PvE)

13>

Comments

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 24, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Redoing the function of skills, even if it might bring specific builds in line with existing builds is a lot of work.

    NO kidding ... and it's a lot of work that Anet doesn't need to do because the game content is designed to match the wide range of performance in the builds that exist. Talking about underperforming builds doesn't even make sense to begin with. You tell us what an underperforming build is ... then we talk.

    There doesn't have to be a scarcity of builds at all times, that's a result of poor balance.

    Except that's not true ... there IS no scarcity of builds. There are LOTS of builds you can play and be successful with at ANY time. And that's not a result of poor balance .. it's the result of intentional game content design that allows it. That's the whole problem with your mentality ... you can't explain what you mean when you throw around terms like 'underperforming' and 'viable'. We have to guess .. then you dismiss what we say. We can only assume you are referring to meta as your threshold for what is and what is not. So here it goes ...

    You said I'm accusing you ... well, now you will be right. I'm going to accuse you of using the 'difficulty' of new player experience to push meta think into the game. No thanks ... we don't need that. Dozens of games already do it ... and better than Anet ever could with GW2. If you want to be told what builds you should play as a consequence of game design, go play those games.

    I feel like I've had this exact conversation before years ago about a break bar system over the 5-25 Stun system Arena net used to have for bosses. People were fervently against that too. I wasn't the only one to suggest that change and I'm not the first or last to bring up this problem.

    Funny thing is, I don't even want to play a tank which is one of the pillars of the argument. I'll admit that I do want to run a turret engineer, but that's more a curiosity for me than anything, I'd probably still prefer the complexity of the condi Kits holosmith. I do want to run a minion master build, But BOY is the type of build I want to run on minions extremely different than what people are accusing me of wanting. And my specific minion desires are fairly irrelevant to the conversation. I think I brought them up once, but no more.

    Builds are crafted by the devs to some extent. You can choose to believe in the illusion that they're not but good developers can make it seem like it was your choice and not something that's been partially or mostly planned. Arena net has planned our builds out before, and Does it today. I don't want arena net to completely plan our builds out. Absolutely not. They do have builds in mind when they introduce specific skills, specs or traits, these builds might not manifest as they expected but the core of what that build is most often does.

    And I do play those games. They're Guild Wars 1, Guild Wars 2, Diablo III, And Magic: The gathering. All of them have specific builds in mind and offer some level of construction of those builds with minor variation between specific details of those builds.

    OK that's all great but you aren't addressing my points ... There isn't a scarcity of builds that you can play and be successful with and that's a results of Anet designing content that has a low threshold of success. What do you mean when you say underperforming or viable?

    If you don't want to be accused of pushing metathinking and making suggestions that aren't solving any problems, you need to me more clear about what you intend behind making 'underperforming' builds more 'viable'.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • @Sobx.1758 said:
    So what you're saying is you want to include significant toughness in your build and then... not get hit? I don't understand this approach or how it helps create any immertion at all, but maybe that's just me.

    so you didn't read.
    i want that mobs attack their enemies and not random bystanders/bypassers. currently it happens very often that mobs just get distracted by someone standing around or passing by. that could make the slightest sense if the mob had a chance to kill them (easy targest first/weakest link) but no it is the exact opposite, so it makes no sense at all.
    also it creates immersion to not get hit with significant toughness because logically nobody attacks the beef castle first if there is the possibility to get backstabbed by the half naked dude with a knife. instead you take out that guy that dies easily and dodge the beef castle that can't move properly due to the armor. that would be logical, that would be immersive (though not really a great game). your post makes no sense at all.

    that is why in my post the major source of aggro is damage, so the aggro system is "biggest threat". a friendly bystander will never be the biggest threat. however, damage alone is a bad system as anyone has to deal less dmg than the tank or tank themselves, meaning there can only be tanks (and supports) in an optimized group. it would be the death for dds, especially glasscannons. so there need to be further influences like proximity and certain condis meant for tanking.

  • I don't get it, I mean I do but, I really don't.

    I came to GW2 with years in many other MMO's, RPG's etc etc, and the reason I stay/keep coming back to GW2 are the things which are being debated as negative on this thread.

    This game is not like other games, the quality of life for the player is way higher in this game than other games IMO. One of the primary QoL moments was finding out that in order to get into a group I didn't need to roll a Tank or Healer. In fact there wasn't much of an option to do either and I was totally okay with this. Having been a Tank and Healer in various raiding and dungeon crawling games I did have enjoyable times but, suffered terminal burn out like many other primary Tank/Healers have. WoW has/had a mantra "Bring the player, not the class" in their development team, GW2 makes that a reality by taking the paradigm and shifting it.

    I think where people get lost is the jump from new player to meta build. Understanding the Meta is not easy, and it is different in various game types. Someone mentioned Magic: The Gathering as a comparable, and I think it is apt:

    In M:tG the 'Standard' Meta shifts every 3 months after a new release (or faster if they are banning cards like the past few years). As the Meta shifts players refine the tools/cards they build their decks with until you have some 'Top Tier' decks that have higher probability of winning over most other deck builds. This is basic Min/Maxing to provide the player with the best odds of winning.

    M:tG has several different formats which change the foundation of how you play (providing different Meta), these include Legacy, Modern, Pioneer, Commander and so on. What separates each of these is the card base, deck and play restrictions you have to work with, and as such each has it's own meta that shifts slowly over time. What is great in Standard might be terrible in Modern (or other contrasting formats) simply due to what is available in the Meta to play with.

    Playing within the Meta in M:tG means you will likely go online, find a top tier deck, build it and compete. However there are lots of non-meta ways to play, that are just fun for the player. I personally appreciate but generally do not gravitate towards meta decks, preferring to find the cards I like and seeing how I can make them work. In doing so I acknowledge that my odds of winning any given game will be lower than if I played a Meta deck, but that my personal enjoyment of playing the game my way goes up.

    Now, parallel this to GW2:

    Different game types have different meta as they have different requirements. When we look at a profession, we see many traits and skills that allow a variety of playstyles (but not all prof can do all things well). The conversation about Mesmer tanks being the tankiest of tanks is interesting, but it also requires understanding the meta. Do you need a Mesmer tank in raiding? No, but some people refined the Meta raiding composition (and associated prof builds) to a point that Mesmer stands out as a great if not best option for raiding if the rest of the raid comp supports it. Those builds and comps are predicated on fast and efficient clearing with players who understand the concepts of the raid and group very well and likely have a lot of experience figuring it out. That same Mesmer tank build could be complete garbage in PvP or Open World, as the meta/requirements for play are different, something that some people don't understand.

    I have had several friends join and play GW2 over the years, some stuck, some didn't, but all of them talked about finding MetaBattle and how it confused them to jump into a very refined spec meant for a specific Meta. All of them preferred to play around with their own specs based upon their own experience in different play types and most played non-meta or inefficient builds, but enjoyed the game for what it is, not what it wasn't.

    Look at any profession on MetaBattle, and you will see some E-Specs have very little in the way of visible builds (and almost no Core builds). Mesmer's Mirage E-Spec show only Condi builds for example, but does that mean that Mirage Power is not viable? Does that mean I should not play Mirage unless I use one of these 'Meta' builds?

    Personally I think, to the OP point, that we don't need to change what the class does because of the way it is named (the old don't judge a book by it's cover). Nor do I think we need an agro/threat system or tank focused specs having a broad space to play in, it feels like it would be a restrictive change based upon the experience I have had in other games. To another comment, yes, it would be nice if some completely dead traits or skills were reworked to be more meaningful in at least 1 gametype if not more.

    I do think though, that we need something between Noob and Meta that guides new players into basic but solid leveling, PvE and PvP/WvW builds. Stuff that focus on the strengths of various weapons, skills and traits to get people into the game and playing. This isn't necessarily something for Anet to provide either, as the community has invested millions of hours more playing the game than Anet and might know what works best.

    So after all those words, I can summarize by saying "It is what it is (and a lot of us think it is pretty great), and what we can do about it as part of the GW2 community is make it easier for new and returning players by providing a helping hand rather than asking Anet to fix a perceived problem".

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 24, 2020

    @WorldofBay.8160 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    So what you're saying is you want to include significant toughness in your build and then... not get hit? I don't understand this approach or how it helps create any immertion at all, but maybe that's just me.

    i want that mobs attack their enemies and not random bystanders/bypassers. currently it happens very often that mobs just get distracted by someone standing around or passing by. that could make the slightest sense if the mob had a chance to kill them (easy targest first/weakest link) but no it is the exact opposite, so it makes no sense at all.

    That definitely does not happen in OW PVE. Mobs don't just 'randomly' lose aggro from their targets and pick a completely new one one 'randomly'. Most likely what you are experiencing is someone runs out of the mobs aggro range and the mob goes back to it's 'home' ... and the 'random' person standing closest to that spot gets aggro. None of that is unreasonable or unexpected.

    As for raids, etc ... you are not JUST some random bystander there ... your part of the group and aggro flicker should be anticipated. Again, no holy trinity here ... and no wanting it either. If you get aggro, better learn to deal with it. This is actually part of the game that INCREASES immersion ... since the mechanic of tanking/healing does completely the opposite. Asking for a aggro mechanic, whether it's based on DPS/toughness/whatever is still a promotion of the thing that this game is attempting to avoid. If you want to play tank, there are GREAT games out there that do it. Aggro based on DPS is massively unpredicable mechanic ... so what's the point? So what are you accomplishing with that? It's so contrived and easy to cheese. Like ... just no. It's actually the worst mechanic you could have for Aggro because what do you do if you get agg and you don't want it? You just stop attacking ... That's hugely LAME and it's not immersive! It's just garbage.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 24, 2020

    @WorldofBay.8160 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    So what you're saying is you want to include significant toughness in your build and then... not get hit? I don't understand this approach or how it helps create any immertion at all, but maybe that's just me.

    so you didn't read.
    i want that mobs attack their enemies and not random bystanders/bypassers. currently it happens very often that mobs just get distracted by someone standing around or passing by. that could make the slightest sense if the mob had a chance to kill them (easy targest first/weakest link) but no it is the exact opposite, so it makes no sense at all.

    Yeaaa... I'm just clashing what you say with what I usually experience in the game and I never really had much of a problem with what you describe. I assume it's also mostly the same for others seeing how aggro talk here is aimed at raids.

    also it creates immersion to not get hit with significant toughness because logically nobody attacks the beef castle first if there is the possibility to get backstabbed by the half naked dude with a knife. instead you take out that guy that dies easily and dodge the beef castle that can't move properly due to the armor. that would be logical, that would be immersive (though not really a great game). your post makes no sense at all.

    These are mobs in mmorpg. You're talking about aggro system which means your enemy literally holds an excel spreadshit in its head and then say your "immersion breaks when the enemy attacks a beefcake".
    What about your "immersion" when you add toughness to your character but literally nothing about its appearance -body or armor alike- changes? That doesn't break it? What about skins and outfits changing the appearance but not influencing the capabilities of your gear? Still immersed there I guess, but the aggro system takes you riiiight out of the game? Interesting.
    Honestly, I'm kind of tired of seeing "mah immersion" used as a main argument, because it's usually (like in this case) used for something I simply don't like for whatever reason, but don't have a solid argument against. So... you know... immersion! It can be said about literally everything and nothing in the game at the same time.

    that is why in my post the major source of aggro is damage, so the aggro system is "biggest threat". a friendly bystander will never be the biggest threat.

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Aggro

    however, damage alone is a bad system as anyone has to deal less dmg than the tank or tank themselves, meaning there can only be tanks (and supports) in an optimized group. it would be the death for dds, especially glasscannons. so there need to be further influences like proximity and certain condis meant for tanking.

    I don't need an explanation for how "your usual aggro system" works, I understand it and wrote my previous comment/s with that in mind. It doesn't really add anything to the game and just puts additional brackets on each build to include skills that keep generating/dropping aggro. Same rotations, possibly less damage, maybe an initial switch in the meta classes depending what effect gets added to which skill/class/build, but after the initial change, the "meta" will still be "meta" and the complaints will remain the same as they are right now. I don't see the point.

  • @Obtena.7952 said:

    @WorldofBay.8160 said:
    i want that mobs attack their enemies and not random bystanders/bypassers. currently it happens very often that mobs just get distracted by someone standing around or passing by. that could make the slightest sense if the mob had a chance to kill them (easy targest first/weakest link) but no it is the exact opposite, so it makes no sense at all.

    That definitely does not happen in OW PVE. Mobs don't just 'randomly' lose aggro from their targets and pick a completely new one one 'randomly'.

    that happens actually quite often. just that it isn't random but for the stupidest reason ever: "that guy can take more hits than my direct enemy, let's attack him". it occurred to me a lot in HoT and PoF areas, less so in core although core HP NPCs love to stray away and attack different targets. did you really never experience it?

  • @Sobx.1758 said:
    I don't need an explanation for how "your usual aggro system" works, I understand it and wrote my previous comment/s with that in mind. It doesn't really add anything to the game and just puts additional brackets on each build to include skills that keep generating/dropping aggro. Same rotations, possibly less damage, maybe an initial switch in the meta classes depending what effect gets added to which skill/class/build, but after the initial change, the "meta" will still be "meta" and the complaints will remain the same as they are right now. I don't see the point.

    honestly i'd be happy if just the stupid toughness part is removed in open world pve, there is no reason for it and it creates stupid situations.
    also any NPC that can be turned aggro should know who did it and set a big threat value for that person. turning people aggro and watching them run away is dumb for everyone involved.

  • Classess not being what they seem is what makes GW2 great. What if someone likes a tank but had it up to here with it's role being tied to paladin type LoL garen look-a-like? Here he can pick a necro, a direct opposite of general tank trope and tank as a kitten death mage!

    What if another person doesn't like their "paladins" super tanky, but with vastly inferior damage to all other classes? Well with guardian it's all up to you. By default you got great damage but are horribly squishy and need to rely on active defenses a lot to be the night unkillable "tank".

    Don't like rangers being afraid to melee? Here ranger is a competent melee fighter if he so chooses.

    Heck even a kitten thief can tank if he build & plays proper. That's the huge fun of GW2 - it's not the same old boring kitten over again!

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 24, 2020

    @WorldofBay.8160 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @WorldofBay.8160 said:
    i want that mobs attack their enemies and not random bystanders/bypassers. currently it happens very often that mobs just get distracted by someone standing around or passing by. that could make the slightest sense if the mob had a chance to kill them (easy targest first/weakest link) but no it is the exact opposite, so it makes no sense at all.

    That definitely does not happen in OW PVE. Mobs don't just 'randomly' lose aggro from their targets and pick a completely new one one 'randomly'.

    that happens actually quite often. just that it isn't random but for the stupidest reason ever: "that guy can take more hits than my direct enemy, let's attack him". it occurred to me a lot in HoT and PoF areas, less so in core although core HP NPCs love to stray away and attack different targets. did you really never experience it?

    I've experienced two kind of 'agg flicker' in OW.

    1. Person runs away and mob resets ... will attack person closest to it's respawn point
    2. Person has multiple mobs and I pull aggro by attacking a 'fresh' mob that hasn't taken damage.

    There isn't any 'random' agg flicker ... if you get aggro, it's because of how the game works. Mobs don't 'make decisions' ... Aggro is based on SOMETHING. It's definitely not random like you describe it to be.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Redoing the function of skills, even if it might bring specific builds in line with existing builds is a lot of work.

    NO kidding ... and it's a lot of work that Anet doesn't need to do because the game content is designed to match the wide range of performance in the builds that exist. Talking about underperforming builds doesn't even make sense to begin with. You tell us what an underperforming build is ... then we talk.

    There doesn't have to be a scarcity of builds at all times, that's a result of poor balance.

    Except that's not true ... there IS no scarcity of builds. There are LOTS of builds you can play and be successful with at ANY time. And that's not a result of poor balance .. it's the result of intentional game content design that allows it. That's the whole problem with your mentality ... you can't explain what you mean when you throw around terms like 'underperforming' and 'viable'. We have to guess .. then you dismiss what we say. We can only assume you are referring to meta as your threshold for what is and what is not. So here it goes ...

    You said I'm accusing you ... well, now you will be right. I'm going to accuse you of using the 'difficulty' of new player experience to push meta think into the game. No thanks ... we don't need that. Dozens of games already do it ... and better than Anet ever could with GW2. If you want to be told what builds you should play as a consequence of game design, go play those games.

    I feel like I've had this exact conversation before years ago about a break bar system over the 5-25 Stun system Arena net used to have for bosses. People were fervently against that too. I wasn't the only one to suggest that change and I'm not the first or last to bring up this problem.

    Funny thing is, I don't even want to play a tank which is one of the pillars of the argument. I'll admit that I do want to run a turret engineer, but that's more a curiosity for me than anything, I'd probably still prefer the complexity of the condi Kits holosmith. I do want to run a minion master build, But BOY is the type of build I want to run on minions extremely different than what people are accusing me of wanting. And my specific minion desires are fairly irrelevant to the conversation. I think I brought them up once, but no more.

    Builds are crafted by the devs to some extent. You can choose to believe in the illusion that they're not but good developers can make it seem like it was your choice and not something that's been partially or mostly planned. Arena net has planned our builds out before, and Does it today. I don't want arena net to completely plan our builds out. Absolutely not. They do have builds in mind when they introduce specific skills, specs or traits, these builds might not manifest as they expected but the core of what that build is most often does.

    And I do play those games. They're Guild Wars 1, Guild Wars 2, Diablo III, And Magic: The gathering. All of them have specific builds in mind and offer some level of construction of those builds with minor variation between specific details of those builds.

    OK that's all great but you aren't addressing my points ... There isn't a scarcity of builds that you can play and be successful with and that's a results of Anet designing content that has a low threshold of success. What do you mean when you say underperforming or viable?

    If you don't want to be accused of pushing metathinking and making suggestions that aren't solving any problems, you need to me more clear about what you intend behind making 'underperforming' builds more 'viable'.

    I thought I explained it quite well several posts ago. I'm sorry if I didn't.

    Lets try an example. I like to experiment with builds in difficult open world maps from time to time. Drizzlewood coast is my current practicing spot at the moment, although i've used Dragonfall, HoT, the Desolation and other parts of Living world Season 3 and 4. I've also used Dungeon runs to test out off meta builds. The success rate of these builds varies. For example, Chill reaper is actually quite successful in spite of its inability to hit its targeted DPS in raids(Which I tested there too) and is a viable build. Its Not as good as Condi Scourge, but it has its charm and could still be a good launching point for a novice player. Now lets compare this to Turrets. I have recently tested out a Scrapper, Holosmith and core engineer with turrets in Drizzlewood. Why? I was looking for something I or others might have missed in its design and trying to see if it could be successful in these more difficult maps where enemies are hyper aggressive. Unlike the off meta Chill reaper which did exceptionally well, the Turrets engineer in all situations did extremely poorly, struggling to take on even small groups or groups with other players. There was a unique cavoite to that though. Thumper turret was actually quite handy in comparison to the other turrets. I was quite pleased with its results even if its utility wasn't quite there. But the Aoe Knock down was great. If you could still toss turrets like the old trait that was removed I'd say it would be a fine include on an engineer's bar. As it is now, it is not.

    This is a comparison between two builds. Both off meta. Chill reaper shows a lot of promise and I can recommend it to a new player who wants to play condi and struggles with scourge's play style. Turret Engineer I can't because it can't even reach a base line usability even in late game open world maps.

    Of course Those are the only off meta builds I use either. I've used Core Guardian as well to some success, Power Renegade/revenant which is quite good, Flamethrower Engi, power core ele. And all of these builds Do actually have more advanced builds in their class that can fill many of those builds desired requirements. Renegade has a condi build which functions similarly, Engineer has power holo and condi holo which might be a stretch but I digress, Power core ele has both power weaver and power tempest, core guardian has dragon hunter which is similar to my build. A build like turrets does not. The same is true with Minion master to a lesser extent.

    I've recently been Testing a core Minion master build. A person on the necro forums mentioned they wanted a build for core necromancer for PvE and I wanted to see what I could come up with. And There are some Hickups in the build for sure. If Bone minions for example spawned a maximum of 3 minions and spawned a new minion every 5 seconds to replace each minion missing for example and Bone Fiend spawned 2 minions instead of one with a similar charge system spawning I almost feel it could be quite good on core to offer some diverse combinations while also offering some unique choices for Scourge and reaper. But it doesn't quite have that punch it needs yet. And it wouldn't be my preferred method of Minion Master. It would be closer to Witch Doctor from Diablo III which I'm not much of a fan of, but is still quite solid.

    I've wrote entire essays on minion masters so I'd rather not do that again at this time as I feel I will be doing it again in the near future on the necromancer forums anyway.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 25, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:
    I thought I explained it quite well several posts ago. I'm sorry if I didn't.

    Well, not really, because comparing builds doesn't prove anything other than some builds are better than others. That's a big SO WHAT in my book. Those examples still don't go to the heart of my point; you keep talking about builds that underperform and need to be viable ... but you can't define those things, so they are meaningless in the context of claiming something needs to be fixed.

    What I'm really saying is this: all the available builds are spread over a wide range of performance. No particular build needs to be adjusted in that range because the content already takes that wide range into account and allows a player large number of those builds and be successful. Just because you don't feel you can recommend a particular build to a new player doesn't mean it's not viable or underwhelming. This statement from you pretty much nails it.

    But it doesn't quite have that punch it needs yet.

    Obviously you think this build needs a boost ... but not having enough 'punch' doesn't explain why or what boost it should get. I've played minion builds ... they are MORE than sufficient to accomplish many things in the game ... almost to the point of broken, doing things that questionably shouldn't be able to be done solo with such little effort. So what are you talking about? As far as I'm concerned, there sure is a lot of lofty talk going on to simply say you want minions to be better than they are now just because you know there are builds that do better in some cherrypicked scenario. That's metathink and that's not something ANYONE should be promoting in this game.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 24, 2020

    @WorldofBay.8160 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @WorldofBay.8160 said:
    i want that mobs attack their enemies and not random bystanders/bypassers. currently it happens very often that mobs just get distracted by someone standing around or passing by. that could make the slightest sense if the mob had a chance to kill them (easy targest first/weakest link) but no it is the exact opposite, so it makes no sense at all.

    That definitely does not happen in OW PVE. Mobs don't just 'randomly' lose aggro from their targets and pick a completely new one one 'randomly'.

    that happens actually quite often. just that it isn't random but for the stupidest reason ever: "that guy can take more hits than my direct enemy, let's attack him". it occurred to me a lot in HoT and PoF areas, less so in core although core HP NPCs love to stray away and attack different targets. did you really never experience it?

    Are you sure you're not trying to kite them with ranged weapons over significant distance/time?
    As I said, I never had any problems with that, at least not to the point where I'd actually start noticing it as any type of common issue.

    @WorldofBay.8160 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    I don't need an explanation for how "your usual aggro system" works, I understand it and wrote my previous comment/s with that in mind. It doesn't really add anything to the game and just puts additional brackets on each build to include skills that keep generating/dropping aggro. Same rotations, possibly less damage, maybe an initial switch in the meta classes depending what effect gets added to which skill/class/build, but after the initial change, the "meta" will still be "meta" and the complaints will remain the same as they are right now. I don't see the point.

    honestly i'd be happy if just the stupid toughness part is removed in open world pve, there is no reason for it and it creates stupid situations.
    also any NPC that can be turned aggro should know who did it and set a big threat value for that person. turning people aggro and watching them run away is dumb for everyone involved.

    I can't say that I care about this OW change either way, never was an issue for me.

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Redoing the function of skills, even if it might bring specific builds in line with existing builds is a lot of work.

    NO kidding ... and it's a lot of work that Anet doesn't need to do because the game content is designed to match the wide range of performance in the builds that exist. Talking about underperforming builds doesn't even make sense to begin with. You tell us what an underperforming build is ... then we talk.

    There doesn't have to be a scarcity of builds at all times, that's a result of poor balance.

    Except that's not true ... there IS no scarcity of builds. There are LOTS of builds you can play and be successful with at ANY time. And that's not a result of poor balance .. it's the result of intentional game content design that allows it. That's the whole problem with your mentality ... you can't explain what you mean when you throw around terms like 'underperforming' and 'viable'. We have to guess .. then you dismiss what we say. We can only assume you are referring to meta as your threshold for what is and what is not. So here it goes ...

    You said I'm accusing you ... well, now you will be right. I'm going to accuse you of using the 'difficulty' of new player experience to push meta think into the game. No thanks ... we don't need that. Dozens of games already do it ... and better than Anet ever could with GW2. If you want to be told what builds you should play as a consequence of game design, go play those games.

    I feel like I've had this exact conversation before years ago about a break bar system over the 5-25 Stun system Arena net used to have for bosses. People were fervently against that too. I wasn't the only one to suggest that change and I'm not the first or last to bring up this problem.

    Funny thing is, I don't even want to play a tank which is one of the pillars of the argument. I'll admit that I do want to run a turret engineer, but that's more a curiosity for me than anything, I'd probably still prefer the complexity of the condi Kits holosmith. I do want to run a minion master build, But BOY is the type of build I want to run on minions extremely different than what people are accusing me of wanting. And my specific minion desires are fairly irrelevant to the conversation. I think I brought them up once, but no more.

    Builds are crafted by the devs to some extent. You can choose to believe in the illusion that they're not but good developers can make it seem like it was your choice and not something that's been partially or mostly planned. Arena net has planned our builds out before, and Does it today. I don't want arena net to completely plan our builds out. Absolutely not. They do have builds in mind when they introduce specific skills, specs or traits, these builds might not manifest as they expected but the core of what that build is most often does.

    And I do play those games. They're Guild Wars 1, Guild Wars 2, Diablo III, And Magic: The gathering. All of them have specific builds in mind and offer some level of construction of those builds with minor variation between specific details of those builds.

    OK that's all great but you aren't addressing my points ... There isn't a scarcity of builds that you can play and be successful with and that's a results of Anet designing content that has a low threshold of success. What do you mean when you say underperforming or viable?

    If you don't want to be accused of pushing metathinking and making suggestions that aren't solving any problems, you need to me more clear about what you intend behind making 'underperforming' builds more 'viable'.

    I've recently been Testing a core Minion master build. A person on the necro forums mentioned they wanted a build for core necromancer for PvE and I wanted to see what I could come up with. And There are some Hickups in the build for sure. If Bone minions for example spawned a maximum of 3 minions and spawned a new minion every 5 seconds to replace each minion missing for example and Bone Fiend spawned 2 minions instead of one with a similar charge system spawning I almost feel it could be quite good on core to offer some diverse combinations while also offering some unique choices for Scourge and reaper. But it doesn't quite have that punch it needs yet. And it wouldn't be my preferred method of Minion Master. It would be closer to Witch Doctor from Diablo III which I'm not much of a fan of, but is still quite solid.

    ...aaand we went from "I just want minionmancer to be viable" to "it has some hiccups", because it's already viable. And the apparent solution is "just let me spam more minoins". I'm fairly confident there's no need to have more minions out at once than it is already possible.
    Gw2 isn't Diablo, not sure what's with the constant comparisons.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You're simply demonstrating some builds are better than others. That's a big SO WHAT in my book. Those examples still don't go to the heart of my point; you can't define what builds should be fixed to deliver what you want ... at least not objectively.

    What I'm really saying is this: builds have a wide range of performance ... this isn't a problem that needs to be fixed because the content is already taking that into account.

    Well, maybe you need to stop moving the goalpost. I mentioned in the post that many of the builds I've used have end game equivalence. Turrets and minions do not. Tanking is still a fairly narrow role that is almost entirely dominated by chronomancer. Tanking is a highly desired role players want to do. And by having this role being so narrow it cuts out a good number of people who might otherwise enjoy the game.

    I mentioned in my initial post about the human psychology both wanting something different but also still wanting that familiarity. Its a common phenomena known in the entertainment industry. Its why So many companies keep pushing out remakes. In video games, Movies, television. In order to improve the introduction for new players into this game, the baseline expectations should be accounted for. Humans are Subjective by nature and you can't logic someone into liking something so drastically different. There needs to be that initial familiarity with the property with just enough different at face value to get them in. Once that initial connection is established the fan base is more likely to find enjoyment in the difference and praise the differences like you're doing.

    We also must remember that us on the forums are the dedicated fans. Between All of us collectively in this one post we probably have close to 100k to 200k hours of play time in the game. We see the amazing game for what it is. An outsider? Not so much, they don't recognize what's here. And one of the weaknesses of this game is the various issues with the hook. Now I'm not saying the class struggle is the only problematic hook for this game. It absolutely is not. But it absolutely is a major struggling point for new players.

    Asking new players to get through the core story which is mediocre at best. Asking new players to roam the core maps which are barely engaging except for those rare set pieces such as World bosses. You have Dungeons which are poorly balanced and almost completely abandoned content which new players are pushed to playing by the leveling logs. The game also poorly teaches the players the mechanics of the game. Then once they finally get to 80 they get crushed by HoT which even on the forums is described as "The dark souls of GW2" which I find laughable, but clearly enough people feel that way. Then finally if they get through all of that, Fractals and Raids they might want to take their Minion build, Turrets build, Tank Guardian, Tank warrior, and find out that these builds are not just undesired but detrimental to the cohesion of the group. At what stage do these players finally decide to just drop the game? We as a community and arena net as a company are asking a whole lot from them to endure a lot of outdated design that struggles to maintain interest only at the end to be faced with essentially having to reevaluate the very character they started as because its end game role is nothing like what they wanted to play.

    We're asking a hell of a lot of new players. And I Do believe and I'm sure you do that if they stuck through all the mud they'd find a fantastic game at the end. But most aren't going to do that. I wouldn't do that and you wouldn't either if we weren't already invested in the game.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You're simply demonstrating some builds are better than others. That's a big SO WHAT in my book. Those examples still don't go to the heart of my point; you can't define what builds should be fixed to deliver what you want ... at least not objectively.

    What I'm really saying is this: builds have a wide range of performance ... this isn't a problem that needs to be fixed because the content is already taking that into account.

    Well, maybe you need to stop moving the goalpost. I mentioned in the post that many of the builds I've used have end game equivalence. Turrets and minions do not. Tanking is still a fairly narrow role that is almost entirely dominated by chronomancer. Tanking is a highly desired role players want to do. And by having this role being so narrow it cuts out a good number of people who might otherwise enjoy the game.

    You can tank with almost anything as long as you don't want to hold tightly onto the meta builds.

    I mentioned in my initial post about the human psychology both wanting something different but also still wanting that familiarity. Its a common phenomena known in the entertainment industry. Its why So many companies keep pushing out remakes. In video games, Movies, television. In order to improve the introduction for new players into this game, the baseline expectations should be accounted for. Humans are Subjective by nature and you can't logic someone into liking something so drastically different. There needs to be that initial familiarity with the property with just enough different at face value to get them in. Once that initial connection is established the fan base is more likely to find enjoyment in the difference and praise the differences like you're doing.

    Companies keep pushing out remakes due to them being easier to make than something completely new, hopefuly a different take here and there combined with new technological advancements are enough to pull people in for some quick buck, so... Here's a slightly different take for your theory I guess. Somehow despite all your claims about people "wanting the same" and "gw2 being too different" we're still here, so I'll go ahead and say that you're stretching your "human psychology" claims pretty thin here and it's not even the first time/thread you're doing it for the sake of using it as an argument when you have none.

    Nobody is forcing anyone to "like something so drastically(?) different". Well, nobody except you. If you want another clone, then there's plenty of them available somewhere else. Instead you try to make a game that's its own thing start copying "same old" for the sake of... yeah, new player experience, not yourself, ok. Also pretty sure we were all "new players" in the past as well and we're still here. We truly must be a bunch of unusually... "different" human beings according to your constantly quoted psychology research sources. This one really starts getting to me just like "mah immersion!" complaints.
    "some people like A, some like B, that's just how people are"
    -"NOPE, based on my human psychology knowledge you should like A just like me, because research and stuff! Not my opinion at all, that's how humans work, apparently you're not one, sr, bai"

    We also must remember that us on the forums are the dedicated fans. Between All of us collectively in this one post we probably have close to 100k to 200k hours of play time in the game. We see the amazing game for what it is. An outsider? Not so much, they don't recognize what's here. And one of the weaknesses of this game is the various issues with the hook. Now I'm not saying the class struggle is the only problematic hook for this game. It absolutely is not. But it absolutely is a major struggling point for new players.

    ...dedicated fans that totally skipped the "new player" phase, right?
    And what is this complaint about the "hook"? I thought you were complaining about builds like minionmancer not being viable in late/endgame content (but apparently in the post before this one it's viable, just... has some hiccups, which apparently means "needs more minions"). Casual new players don't raid and don't care much about meta builds. They also don't have a lot to experience with tanking and have no problems with running any build, including minions and turret ones.

    Asking new players to get through the core story which is mediocre at best.

    Subjective and -more importantly- completely avoidable if someone's not interested. What exactly is this complaint?

    Asking new players to roam the core maps which are barely engaging except for those rare set pieces such as World bosses.

    Also subjective. And this is where they learn the game while leveling up, if they don't like how the game plays then... they don't need to play it, not sure what else is there to say about this part. And I definitely don't agree that world bosses are especially engaging -sure "I see a big monster, waow", but it's the type of "content" that's completed by sheer numbers pressing 1.

    You have Dungeons which are poorly balanced and almost completely abandoned content which new players are pushed to playing by the leveling logs.

    How are they poorly balanced? Also completely skippable content unless you want to do it for any personal reason.
    Abandoned? True, but surprisingly I still didn't have a problem doing dungeon runs with completely randoms on completely random builds for a few days when I wanted to pull some runes from them. Might have been lucky, I wouldn't know because I'm not interested in farming dungeons for the sake of farming dungeons.

    The game also poorly teaches the players the mechanics of the game.

    Maybe, I don't exactly remember and as far as I didn't have much of a problem, I'm also actively look for answers instead of waiting to be spoonfed. Which mechanics are poorly taught by the game? Anything other than maybe break bar? :D

    Then once they finally get to 80 they get crushed by HoT which even on the forums is described as "The dark souls of GW2" which I find laughable, but clearly enough people feel that way.

    Pretty sure the only reason HoT is such a "hit" to players (new or not) is because core content is too easy. That said, dying once or twice doesn't do much of a harm here on top of potentially offering some initial challenge or maybe a push into getting level appropriate gear.
    "clearly enough people feel that way" is just another interesting claim. How many people feel this way and what makes it "enough"?

    Then finally if they get through all of that, Fractals and Raids they might want to take their Minion build, Turrets build, Tank Guardian, Tank warrior, and find out that these builds are not just undesired but detrimental to the cohesion of the group. At what stage do these players finally decide to just drop the game? We as a community and arena net as a company are asking a whole lot from them to endure a lot of outdated design that struggles to maintain interest only at the end to be faced with essentially having to reevaluate the very character they started as because its end game role is nothing like what they wanted to play.

    "I don't want to learn the game but I want to succeed". Welp, cool. But maybe somewhere else.

    We're asking a hell of a lot of new players. And I Do believe and I'm sure you do that if they stuck through all the mud they'd find a fantastic game at the end. But most aren't going to do that. I wouldn't do that and you wouldn't either if we weren't already invested in the game.

    I still don't know what "mud" people need to get through, because based on what I've read above everything other than meta raiding is suffering and bad/outdated/boring/too hard/unexplained/confusing content, possibly all at the same time. I can't say I agree.
    If they don't like anything about the game then that's perfectly fine. They are allowed to. It doesn't mean gw2 needs to change to copy other games.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 25, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You're simply demonstrating some builds are better than others. That's a big SO WHAT in my book. Those examples still don't go to the heart of my point; you can't define what builds should be fixed to deliver what you want ... at least not objectively.

    What I'm really saying is this: builds have a wide range of performance ... this isn't a problem that needs to be fixed because the content is already taking that into account.

    Well, maybe you need to stop moving the goalpost. I mentioned in the post that many of the builds I've used have end game equivalence. Turrets and minions do not.

    There isn't any 'goalpost' being moved ... my ask is SIMPLE. How are you defining what builds are 'underwhelming' to justify you claim they aren't 'viable'? Just demonstrating builds have different levels of performance does NOT do that. Even if you do define this somehow ... we still have the problem that it's a completely subjective assessment. What you find underwhelming and not viable ... others do fine with and enjoy playing.

    We're asking a hell of a lot of new players. And I Do believe and I'm sure you do that if they stuck through all the mud they'd find a fantastic game at the end. But most aren't going to do that. I wouldn't do that and you wouldn't either if we weren't already invested in the game.

    The only thing Anet is asking new players to do is dump their tired, old ideas about what an MMO is and embrace the idea that they can play whatever they want and be successful. That's not a hard ask, since that's what LOTS of players want to do ... demonstrated by the popularity of this game in the first place. I don't even get the barrier for new players you are talking about .... every MMO I play that has some unique element to the game design 'asks' players to rethink what they understand about what MMO's should be and just like GW2 ... THOSE elements are why people stick with those games. If anything, the 'barrier' to a new player is lowered by Anet allowing a wide variety of builds they can be successful with by making content that accommodates that range.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You're simply demonstrating some builds are better than others. That's a big SO WHAT in my book. Those examples still don't go to the heart of my point; you can't define what builds should be fixed to deliver what you want ... at least not objectively.

    What I'm really saying is this: builds have a wide range of performance ... this isn't a problem that needs to be fixed because the content is already taking that into account.

    Well, maybe you need to stop moving the goalpost. I mentioned in the post that many of the builds I've used have end game equivalence. Turrets and minions do not.

    There isn't any 'goalpost' being moved ... my ask is SIMPLE. How are you defining what builds are 'underwhelming' to justify you claim they aren't 'viable'? Just demonstrating builds have different levels of performance does NOT do that.

    We're asking a hell of a lot of new players. And I Do believe and I'm sure you do that if they stuck through all the mud they'd find a fantastic game at the end. But most aren't going to do that. I wouldn't do that and you wouldn't either if we weren't already invested in the game.

    The only thing Anet is asking new players to do is dump their tired, old ideas about what an MMO is and embrace the idea that they can play whatever they want and be successful. That's not a hard ask, since that's what LOTS of players want to do ... demonstrated by the popularity of this game in the first place. I don't even get the barrier for new players you are talking about .... every MMO I play that has some unique element to the game design 'asks' players to rethink what they understand about what MMO's should be and just like GW2 ... THOSE elements are why people stick with those games. If anything, the 'barrier' to a new player is lowered by Anet allowing a wide variety of builds they can be successful with by making content that accommodates that range.

    They can't play whatever they want and be successful and what anet is asking is a massive ask. That's no small ask at all, let's not pretend it isn't.

    And you are moving the goalposts. I can't give you what you want as an answer because you wont be convinced. You've got this idea in your head and you're sticking to it regardless of what I present. I gave you viable on topic answers to your questions and criticisms and it just isn't satisfactory for you.

    I'm not sure how to better explain myself for you and I don't believe I can as you're not looking to be convinced of my position but trying to say I'm wrong with nothing to substantiate that position.

    I've presented you with everything you've asked and tried to keep it as comprehensible as possible but it's just not enough. You fervently disagree with the very basic premise of this discussion which is a evolutionary fact of our nature. And can and is applied to gaming.

    I believe what I'm talking about is the Familiarity heuristic in relationship to gaming. And this cognitive behavior isn't something arena net can just beat but rather can bend. It's why what you think is a small task is often insurmountable for many players.

  • draxynnic.3719draxynnic.3719 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It is interesting to note that in GW1, mobs did target intelligently. All else being equal, they prioritised based on which players (or heros or henchmen or whatever) the server expected them to be able to kill the fastest. I think they also put a priority on anyone doing healing. GW2 did a complete 180 there.

    @WorldofBay.8160 said:
    i would love an aggro rework.
    first of all: how does the mob know who has the most toughness? he shouldn't even know that!
    instead the mob probably knows the classes if he's of a higher intellect and the distance if he's of lower intellect.
    so the basic aggro should be "closest enemy" for biests and any type of low intelligence mob + any higher intelligence mob that simply doesn't care, maybe because arrogant, maybe because ego, maybe because lazyness, whatever. the smartypants on the other hand should solely look at the class, light armor > medium armor > heavy armor and then inside the armor class low hp > medium hp > high hp, so that ele is the first target as long as nobody attacked.
    starting from there damage sets aggro and overrides basic aggro (first hit -> aggro). certain skills can create aggro, especially skills that annoy or anger the mob, or take it away, especially stealth and retreat skills. aggro can never go down to 0 again unless the fight stops, so you can not fear mobs unto bypassers ...
    then there are ccs which have an effect on top of their current one:
    soft cc:

    • provoke creates a huge chuck of aggro -> basic tank condi
    • fear takes aggro away -> obviously
    • torment creates aggro additional to the damage -> great synergy as they get more dmg following you, also more of a provoking skill to cause unreasonable pain
    • cripple creates aggro -> great synergy when they try to follow you
    • confusion takes aggro away -> confusing someone calms them usually so a calming skill
    • weakness takes aggro away -> another calming skill

    hard cc:

    • daze takes aggro away -> another calming skill
    • pull creates aggro -> basic tank condi
    • launch creates aggro -> hard cc without creating distance, so an annoying/provoking cc
    • knockdown creates aggro -> same as above

    I don't think it even needs to be as straightforward as you're talking.

    For instance, fear. Would it take aggro away? Most bosses are immune to being set into panicked flight by a fear effect. So if they're not actually, well, afraid, would it necessarily stop them from attacking the target that attempted to fear them... or would the attempt just make them angry? Or perhaps the PC being just a little bit scarier than the others makes the boss think that they're a more dangerous target and go after them?

    Similar responses can be imagined to... any of the conditions, really. Confusion? The boss really hates mesmers, so inflicting confusion makes it go for you specifically. Weakness? Just makes it mad. Daze? Well, you'll note that berserker has an anti-CC skill explicitly called "Outrage"...

    It's probably reasonable to have all or most of the CCs contribute to an aggro index. That gives multiple professions the opportunity to try it rather than just those that have the highest taunt uptime (or whatever).

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Pretty sure she knows that, but she just doesn't want to admit it because it's obviously undesired in this type of game. She enjoys builds that play themselves (like bunker minion/turret builds -hence the completely unneeded change to the aggro system in raids btw.) despite trying to claim they're not really passive.

    Eh. She's proposing changes to the aggro system in raids to make it MORE active. At the moment, it's pretty much "whoever has the highest toughness gets the aggro" (which is pretty much forcing the boss to hold the idiot ball and generally attack the PC that's hardest to kill) so that all the tank needs to worry about is surviving and moving the boss to where it needs to be moved. What she's proposing there is to make holding aggro require active skill use rather than simply being gear-based.

    Which is a bit harder to do than in some games because GW2 was never designed with the concept of aggro management in mind, but things like taunt and fear and so on could probably be set up so that they influence aggro.

    These changes don't exactly make the aggro system more active. All it will do is pigeonhole builds into their forced roles even more because the proposal was to give "+aggro/-aggro" to the certain skills, which means all you'll absolutely need to do is equip them depending if you want to tank or not, because otherwise you won't reliably hold/drop aggro at all. Nothing about this idea sounds good, it won't really make anything "more active", it won't help build/role diversity, it's just another "I want it to be like in another game". For no good reason at all.
    Apparently current aggro system is too boring and "not active enough", but pushing minions to deal meta-level damage (in the same thread btw) is perfectly reasonable and something we want in the game, ok.

    What we've got at the moment is basically Sorrow's Furnace-style gear tank for all the raids that involve a tank, whether it's based off Toughness, the glyphs with Soulless Horror, or whatever. Fulfill the condition, and the boss will follow you. Regardless of what you do. It's hard to think of anything less active.

    I think it would be reasonable to have high-end PvE content which uses a different and more active aggro metric. Yeah, it would require having certain skills available in the group. But we ALREADY expect certain skill types to be present in high-end content, such as heals, buffs, and banners. The raid might need to be calibrated for having one less DPS slot, but I think that's okay.

    It also fits better with the original intent behind Guild Wars. It wasn't to be tank/heal/dps, it was to be control/support/dps. Control skills that aren't simple dazes and stuns were intended to be a substitute for tanking, keeping enemies off vulnerable party members by pushing them away or pulling them towards you. In practice, though, against pretty much any boss, all the various control effects usually just boil down to how much breakbar damage you can do during the periods where there is even a bar to break. It'd be nice to see the control effects, well, control rather than simply be breakbar damage, and by ArenaNet's explanation, tanking is a form of control. It makes sense for control skills to be part of a build based around controlling the enemy.

    TL;DR I don't think it's a bad thing for a player filling a particular role to bring skills that help them fill that role.

    (I've already expressed my opinion regarding minion masters doing the damage of dedicated DPS builds, so as well as being a completely separate discussion, that particular swipe isn't even close enough to call it a strawman argument.)

  • Westenev.5289Westenev.5289 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 25, 2020

    Core Elementalist camps fire staff, spamming 2 and 5 off cooldown (beginning a fight with Glyph of Storms for the vulnerability). Not much class knowledge needed there.

    I will agree that some utility are almost mandatory, while others have not aged well. Signet of Agility and Signet of Assassins on Thief is almost manditory due to the utility it provides (both passive and active), meaning I'll never have room for, say, preperations, venoms or tricks in a fight.

    I think Utilities might be too strong in general - they just aren't situational.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 25, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You're simply demonstrating some builds are better than others. That's a big SO WHAT in my book. Those examples still don't go to the heart of my point; you can't define what builds should be fixed to deliver what you want ... at least not objectively.

    What I'm really saying is this: builds have a wide range of performance ... this isn't a problem that needs to be fixed because the content is already taking that into account.

    Well, maybe you need to stop moving the goalpost. I mentioned in the post that many of the builds I've used have end game equivalence. Turrets and minions do not.

    There isn't any 'goalpost' being moved ... my ask is SIMPLE. How are you defining what builds are 'underwhelming' to justify you claim they aren't 'viable'? Just demonstrating builds have different levels of performance does NOT do that.

    We're asking a hell of a lot of new players. And I Do believe and I'm sure you do that if they stuck through all the mud they'd find a fantastic game at the end. But most aren't going to do that. I wouldn't do that and you wouldn't either if we weren't already invested in the game.

    The only thing Anet is asking new players to do is dump their tired, old ideas about what an MMO is and embrace the idea that they can play whatever they want and be successful. That's not a hard ask, since that's what LOTS of players want to do ... demonstrated by the popularity of this game in the first place. I don't even get the barrier for new players you are talking about .... every MMO I play that has some unique element to the game design 'asks' players to rethink what they understand about what MMO's should be and just like GW2 ... THOSE elements are why people stick with those games. If anything, the 'barrier' to a new player is lowered by Anet allowing a wide variety of builds they can be successful with by making content that accommodates that range.

    They can't play whatever they want and be successful and what anet is asking is a massive ask.

    No, that's just way off base. This game offers a player a MASSIVE number of options for builds they can play AND not get stuck using them playing the game because the threshold for success in the game content takes into account the wide build performance range. That's something you disagree with, you need to define what you mean by underwhelming builds, viable builds, etc ... You can't just make those claims without defining what you mean. Comparisons of performance between builds does not define those things; you have to relate those comparisons to a standard.

    I'm not being difficult for the sake of it here ... you want to push metathink in this game? A game that is an escape for players from those traditional ideas? I'm dead set against any ideas that will promotes that kind of thing ... You need to do WAY better than this. See, I think you are just dodging because you know however you want to define those terms to make your point, they will still contain lots of builds that are still capable of being successful in the game. I have YET to play a build that prevents me from succeeding in content in as a matter of fact.

    Honestly, there is no substitute for learning how to play. Sure, it's hard for new players ... but it's not because there isn't enough 'viable' builds ... it's because they are new. It's absurd to conclude Anet needs to buff class skills because 'new players'. Game isn't THAT hard ... if it is ... well, too bad really. MMO's just aren't for them.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • kharmin.7683kharmin.7683 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I have YET to play a build that prevents me from succeeding in content in as a matter of fact.

    Even the definition of "succeeding in content" can be subjective. To a degree, I think.

    I am a very casual player.
    Very.
    Casual.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 25, 2020

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You're simply demonstrating some builds are better than others. That's a big SO WHAT in my book. Those examples still don't go to the heart of my point; you can't define what builds should be fixed to deliver what you want ... at least not objectively.

    What I'm really saying is this: builds have a wide range of performance ... this isn't a problem that needs to be fixed because the content is already taking that into account.

    Well, maybe you need to stop moving the goalpost. I mentioned in the post that many of the builds I've used have end game equivalence. Turrets and minions do not.

    There isn't any 'goalpost' being moved ... my ask is SIMPLE. How are you defining what builds are 'underwhelming' to justify you claim they aren't 'viable'? Just demonstrating builds have different levels of performance does NOT do that.

    We're asking a hell of a lot of new players. And I Do believe and I'm sure you do that if they stuck through all the mud they'd find a fantastic game at the end. But most aren't going to do that. I wouldn't do that and you wouldn't either if we weren't already invested in the game.

    The only thing Anet is asking new players to do is dump their tired, old ideas about what an MMO is and embrace the idea that they can play whatever they want and be successful. That's not a hard ask, since that's what LOTS of players want to do ... demonstrated by the popularity of this game in the first place. I don't even get the barrier for new players you are talking about .... every MMO I play that has some unique element to the game design 'asks' players to rethink what they understand about what MMO's should be and just like GW2 ... THOSE elements are why people stick with those games. If anything, the 'barrier' to a new player is lowered by Anet allowing a wide variety of builds they can be successful with by making content that accommodates that range.

    They can't play whatever they want and be successful and what anet is asking is a massive ask. That's no small ask at all, let's not pretend it isn't.

    Yes, they can. And I fail to see how any of it is supposed to be a "massive ask", it's just not.

    And you are moving the goalposts. I can't give you what you want as an answer because you wont be convinced. You've got this idea in your head and you're sticking to it regardless of what I present. I gave you viable on topic answers to your questions and criticisms and it just isn't satisfactory for you.

    I'm not sure how to better explain myself for you and I don't believe I can as you're not looking to be convinced of my position but trying to say I'm wrong with nothing to substantiate that position.

    Now THAT is ironic tbh. ^^

    I've presented you with everything you've asked and tried to keep it as comprehensible as possible but it's just not enough. You fervently disagree with the very basic premise of this discussion which is a evolutionary fact of our nature. And can and is applied to gaming.

    No, it's not an "evolutionary fact of our nature". It seems you've heard -or read- some basics and then answer to any disagreement with "well, that's human psychology, so you're wrong!". You can't possibly think you're entitled to tell someone "you don't think that, because that's not how your brain works", right? That's just inherently flawed, plain wrong and "a bit" arrogant.

    I believe what I'm talking about is the Familiarity heuristic in relationship to gaming. And this cognitive behavior isn't something arena net can just beat but rather can bend. It's why what you think is a small task is often insurmountable for many players.

    This... doesn't really mean what you're trying to make it mean. It has way broader application than what you claim, has more to do with people developing brand loyalty and by the time they get to the gw2 end game or raiding, it's already irrelevant.
    Not to mention that if what you keep repeating was true, we'd still be stuck on the first games ever made, because nobody would ever want to try anything new, play other genres or jump into similar-yet-different games developed by competition, which objectively constantly happens. So... yeah, you know what "it" is called, but pretty sure "it" has nothing to do with this thread or what you're trying to use in place of an argument over and over again.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 25, 2020

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @draxynnic.3719 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    Pretty sure she knows that, but she just doesn't want to admit it because it's obviously undesired in this type of game. She enjoys builds that play themselves (like bunker minion/turret builds -hence the completely unneeded change to the aggro system in raids btw.) despite trying to claim they're not really passive.

    Eh. She's proposing changes to the aggro system in raids to make it MORE active. At the moment, it's pretty much "whoever has the highest toughness gets the aggro" (which is pretty much forcing the boss to hold the idiot ball and generally attack the PC that's hardest to kill) so that all the tank needs to worry about is surviving and moving the boss to where it needs to be moved. What she's proposing there is to make holding aggro require active skill use rather than simply being gear-based.

    Which is a bit harder to do than in some games because GW2 was never designed with the concept of aggro management in mind, but things like taunt and fear and so on could probably be set up so that they influence aggro.

    These changes don't exactly make the aggro system more active. All it will do is pigeonhole builds into their forced roles even more because the proposal was to give "+aggro/-aggro" to the certain skills, which means all you'll absolutely need to do is equip them depending if you want to tank or not, because otherwise you won't reliably hold/drop aggro at all. Nothing about this idea sounds good, it won't really make anything "more active", it won't help build/role diversity, it's just another "I want it to be like in another game". For no good reason at all.
    Apparently current aggro system is too boring and "not active enough", but pushing minions to deal meta-level damage (in the same thread btw) is perfectly reasonable and something we want in the game, ok.

    What we've got at the moment is basically Sorrow's Furnace-style gear tank for all the raids that involve a tank, whether it's based off Toughness, the glyphs with Soulless Horror, or whatever. Fulfill the condition, and the boss will follow you. Regardless of what you do. It's hard to think of anything less active.

    I think it would be reasonable to have high-end PvE content which uses a different and more active aggro metric. Yeah, it would require having certain skills available in the group. But we ALREADY expect certain skill types to be present in high-end content, such as heals, buffs, and banners. The raid might need to be calibrated for having one less DPS slot, but I think that's okay.

    I do understand how current aggro system works and how "usual" aggro system works. I also think I understand what the proposal here is with certain skills gaining/reducing aggro. Not sure if my point is clear or not, so I'll try to repeat: when changing aggro system to the one proposed here, all it changes is that you need to equip aggro-generating skills for a tank and aggro-reducing skills for other roles. Then you include them in your rotation (which is why I said it "possibly lowers dps" depending on what gets added where -not that I care much, but it's just one of possible outcomes of that change) and... that's it. You keep spamming rotations like you are doing currently and keep going for the mechanics like you currently are (btw while people are going away from the boss to complete certain mechanics, the tank is still building up free aggro, so it makes it even less possible to drop it, right?). I DO UNDERSTAND that in theory "it's a huge mechanical change for aggro system", but the result doesn't really change a lot other than LIMITING the possible builds you can use for each role. Not for each role to be "meta", but for each role to be "viable", because each of them needs a set amount of aggro generation/reduction skills (where currently you CAN tank with pretty much anything you want -it won't be optimal, it won't be meta, but it is viable, right?).
    In the end imo this change is not worth the effort and doesn't really change much in the way we'd play raids. Am I missing something about this idea? Is there anything about the above paragraph in need of clarification? (honest questions, if it looks condescending or something, it's not supposed to be)

    It also fits better with the original intent behind Guild Wars. It wasn't to be tank/heal/dps, it was to be control/support/dps. Control skills that aren't simple dazes and stuns were intended to be a substitute for tanking, keeping enemies off vulnerable party members by pushing them away or pulling them towards you. In practice, though, against pretty much any boss, all the various control effects usually just boil down to how much breakbar damage you can do during the periods where there is even a bar to break. It'd be nice to see the control effects, well, control rather than simply be breakbar damage, and by ArenaNet's explanation, tanking is a form of control. It makes sense for control skills to be part of a build based around controlling the enemy.

    See, I'm one of those players that always saw "control" as part of "support" (and yes, I know about that separation for gw2), so... eh. I can't say I agree that "control" is supposed to be directly set in place of "tanks", seeing how there was no need for strictly "pve tanks" before raids were added. When did anet come up with (as in "started realistically thinking about") adding raids? Did they think about it this way when they made core game and stayed away from the classic "trinity" of roles? Maybe they said something about it, I don't know. At the moment I don't really agree with you that it's supposed to be a 1:1 swap, which doesn't mean you're wrong.

  • @Kichwas.7152 said:

    @Ganathar.4956 said:

    @Kichwas.7152 said:
    One of the other main MMOs I play is Elder Scrolls Online.

    I'm phrasing like this on purpose. Stop thinking of WoW everytime you jump MMOs. The above analogies are as wrong there as this mapping of WoW to GW2 is.

    Guardian = WoW Paladin tank
    Warrior = WoW Warrior tank
    ...
    no... we all know that's not true. And, yes, some players log in and assume that. But then they stop trying to play WoW here, and re-adjust.

    Very few people have this issue after a little time in. The game is NOT suffering for failing to be a WoW clone... so... why would it want to try and be a WoW clone.

    There's only one "WoW Clone" on the market that did well, FFXIV, and it only did that because of where it differed and when it did so - it focused on story at a time that WoW was massively fumbling with story...

    There's no need to expect that new players can only play WoW in every MMO they try. If they're here - it's probably because they didn't want to play WoW in that moment. This game can then try to keep them by... not being WoW...

    This has nothing to do with WoW. It's about the common archetypes that that these classes represent in general across the fantasy genre.
    I don't mind melee being a good option for ele. However, it should not completely overshadow what is supposed to be the class' main archetype. This goes for all classes.

    In other words: WoW.

    "Common Archetypes?" - that's all basically only as old as WoW.

    I mentioned ESO for a reason. Every so often there, we get some of these attempts to map various classes to WoW "archetypes". As ESO is a trinity role based game, they do have an easier time of it... but ultimately it fails to carry over right because... fantasy is just more diverse than that.

    Go read something like Andre Norton's Witch World, or Barbara Hambley's Dragonsbane or Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time and map the main characters to these archetypes... it won't work. That's just three authors out of so many...

    At best you have:

    LotR -> D&D's narrowing that down to classes (and think about it - what class is Gandalf... really... answer if you've read Silmarillian: none of them). -> Early video games that were knockoff's of people's D&D dungeon sessions -> Everquest -> Everquest Clone known as WoW -> all these attempts to claim stuff is archetypes.

    But even that is not as old as fantasy, and is just one line.

    It is most pointedly... NOT the line of Guild Wars 1.

    Darling Darling,

    Wow is not the creator of rpg style, not everything is about wow. I never played wow, so your arguments are useless to me. How would I compare GW2 to WOW when I never played WOW?

    This is not about comparison, this is about something that should be in a way, it is WRITTEN that it is that way. But in practice it is another thing that happens.

    I didn't start play gw2 expecting something like others games, I knew it is a game with "freestyle" to play with whatever you want. But the things changed and roles are upside-down.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 26, 2020

    @kharmin.7683 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I have YET to play a build that prevents me from succeeding in content in as a matter of fact.

    Even the definition of "succeeding in content" can be subjective. To a degree, I think.

    True ... I mean, I'm not asking for absolute definitions ... Success for me? Completing Maps, LS, Personal Story, Map metas, participating in Raids/Fractals ... in simplest terms ... being able to play the game. I've YET to play a build that didn't allow me to do any that ... so what does 'not viable build' mean to these people? It means nothing unless the person using that term steps up to give SOME indication of how they define that. OP is avoiding that because as we already know, he's already associated with things that aren't viable as not meta ... or at least he doesn't deny it.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap