Underused Runes could use an Overhaul

There are some Runes sets which are extremely popular like;

1. Superior Rune of the Berserker
2. Superior Rune of the Scholar

Then there are runes no one cares about such as;

1. Superior Rune of Lyssa
2. Superior Rune of Sanctuary
3. Superior Rune of Evasion

More than 70% of Runes are essentially ignored by level 80 and this game focuses on level 80 content.So a good question to ask is Why?

The main reason is while many rune sets have great 6th perk like Rune of Sanctuary, you waste 5 slots to even unlock it and waste your entire build on very useless buffs. More importantly, you cannot switch out runes freely, as you either sacrifice the existing set or pay for a premium item to remove the rune, and they take up valuable slots in your backpack. Making the system even more convoluted.

One possible solution is to reduce Rune sets from 6 to 2.For example, changing Sanctuary Rune set to;+100 Vitality ( 1 )+20% Boon Duration ( 2 )

• Barrier ( 2 )

The advantage of this is, this makes many runes which would never be considered in a build actually more viable.You will have much more creative builds focusing on 3 separate sets instead of everyone running the exact same set.I am sure 50% of the player base owns at least 1 Berserker set or more.

@Kaidan.6509 said:The main reason is while many rune sets have great 6th perk like Rune of Sanctuary, you waste 5 slots to even unlock it and waste your entire build on very useless buffs.

Incorrect, rune sets are valued by the total performance and value they bring, not by their 6th slot bonus.

@Kaidan.6509 said:More importantly, you cannot switch out runes freely, as you either sacrifice the existing set or pay for a premium item to remove the rune, and they take up valuable slots in your backpack. Making the system even more convoluted.

By design as to keep the demand for runes and sigils high. It's not meant to be something you check off.

@Kaidan.6509 said:The advantage of this is, this makes many runes which would never be considered in a build actually more viable.

It would create the same situation as is now: the best performance runes gain in value, all the other runes drop off in value depending on how much less useful they are.

@Kaidan.6509 said:You will have much more creative builds focusing on 3 separate sets instead of everyone running the exact same set.

People are not running the exact same sets, there is a ton of less used but not useless sets in use currently. This is evident by the spread between most valuable and least valuable runes. You can check this yourself on the trading post by the way. There is a lot more runes which are valued between 1.5 - 8 gold than there is runes which are valued close to their minimum value of around 5 silver (select Upgrade component, put in RUNE at the top, sort for only exotic items). Indicating that these runes see less, but enough use that their value is above 0.

@Cyninja.2954 said:

Incorrect, rune sets are valued by the total performance and value they bring, not by their 6th slot bonus.

Yeah, I have some characters that use 5 +1 because the final slot is worthless to that build

Welcome to meta gaming.

Legendary runes will provide a sink I guess I’m just worried loved runes will skyrock

it's not always the max-ed damage. Rune varieties allows for things like Soloing EBG Overgrown Grub or some other possible legit sorcery possible.

Runes/Sigils can now be salvaged, which means that the less valuable ones can be converted into valuable ones via salvage and crafting.

@mtpelion.4562 said:Runes/Sigils can now be salvaged, which means that the less valuable ones can be converted into valuable ones via salvage and crafting.

That doesn't actual solve the problem of making Underused runes actually useful in builds. It just makes them glorified crafting materials.I am talking about changing under used runes to smaller requirements that provide a big buff for a smaller set.

That would allow more mix builds.

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Kaidan.6509 said:The main reason is while many rune sets have great 6th perk like Rune of Sanctuary, you waste

5 slots

to even unlock it and waste your entire build on very useless buffs.

Incorrect I am talking about how the 6th perk was useful while the rest of the set was not. Which would mean a lot of 6th perks are not getting used because the value of the other 5 does not hold enough value to a player.

@Kaidan.6509 said:More importantly, you cannot switch out runes freely, as you either sacrifice the existing set or pay for a premium item to remove the rune, and they take up valuable slots in your backpack. Making the system even more convoluted.

Incorrect - I was talking about the ability to acquire different sets so you can change on demand. A fixed system makes you dedicate your self to a single set. Making less valuable runes lose even more meaningful value.

@Kaidan.6509 said:The advantage of this is, this makes many runes which would never be considered in a build actually more viable.

Incorrect - By decreasing the number of sets from 6 to 2. You increase more rune variety. You wouldn't be able to stack 3 of the same time of sets. Which means you are likely to mix in other sets that were not previously used.

@Kaidan.6509 said:You will have much more creative builds focusing on 3 separate sets instead of everyone running the exact same set.

Incorrect3 things sets a price of the rune

1. Demand
2. Rarity
3. Highest Cost of similiar runes

If a rune is hard to acquire but still not used, the rarity by it self will keep the price for it high as people are less likely to acquire it. One being Rune of the Sunless it is hard to acquire due to its low drop rate. Yet also not something used.

The other issue is people may not be able to afford more expensive versions so they find cheaper options then upgrade to the better version when they get enough gold.That means the runes remain in the B team and not considered "viable picks" in their own right.

The 6-set perks could be set as individual runes, maybe an "Augment" slot on your weapon or chest piece.

Set bonuses should be nulled out, each rune should give a uniform benefit that doesn't rely on the others.

Just have base stat runes that you can pick and choose from. The set stuff never matters at this point because everyone just uses a full set or only 5.

It would be nice if we could use options we never did before just because the good stuff is at the end of the set. (Being bonuses + perk)

Yeah, theres way too many runes, and the majority gravitates to the best throughput ones.Personally I think only 1-4 should be throughput oriented, with 6 being a special thingie on preference.

Are you aware that they just did overhaul the runes back in November?https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/60248/game-update-notes-november-13-2018#latest

One of the complaints I saw prior was A huge disparity in the performance and value of the 6th rune bonus. They did make a lot of changes and several sets came well ahead out of that update. Yes there are still plenty of lesser used and to me at least less interesting rune sets, but there are more to choose from now than before. Previously the way to get the best condi duration was to mix match 4x nightmare & 2x trapper. Now we have several decent options for duration.

It seems to me that the OP’s issue is with design decisions, and with that huge update in the relatively recent past, I don’t see anet doing that kind of overhaul again any time soon. Tweaks to individual sets, perhaps, but not an overhaul.

@Kaidan.6509 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Kaidan.6509 said:The main reason is while many rune sets have great 6th perk like Rune of Sanctuary, you waste

5 slots

to even unlock it and waste your entire build on very useless buffs.

@Kaidan.6509 said:More importantly, you cannot switch out runes freely, as you either sacrifice the existing set or pay for a premium item to remove the rune, and they take up valuable slots in your backpack. Making the system even more convoluted.

@Kaidan.6509 said:The advantage of this is, this makes many runes which would never be considered in a build actually more viable.

@Kaidan.6509 said:You will have much more creative builds focusing on 3 separate sets instead of everyone running the exact same set.

1. Demand
2. Rarity
3. Highest Cost of similiar runes

You are incorrect about the values on the 2 set runes tho to compensate getting 3 sets of 2 all of the rune bonuses would have to be slashed by 66% making some pretty useless.

@Kaidan.6509 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Kaidan.6509 said:The main reason is while many rune sets have great 6th perk like Rune of Sanctuary, you waste

5 slots

to even unlock it and waste your entire build on very useless buffs.

That is simply not true. People take sets for the stats AND the 6th bonus. That should be evident since a lot of people opt to take cheaper, less desired sets for the stats not caring about the 6th bonus. You are plain incorrect. You even analyze the issue that people ignore the 6 piece bonus, but draw a completely faulty conclusion. The stats are often significantly more important than the 6 piece bonus, which is mostly only the deciding factor of which set is consider absolutely best in slot between multiple useful sets.

@Kaidan.6509 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Kaidan.6509 said:More importantly, you cannot switch out runes freely, as you either sacrifice the existing set or pay for a premium item to remove the rune, and they take up valuable slots in your backpack. Making the system even more convoluted.

Possible with legendary armor. Past developer communication was always that they WANT people to have to replace runes and sigils for economic reasons.

@Kaidan.6509 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Kaidan.6509 said:The advantage of this is, this makes many runes which would never be considered in a build actually more viable.

No you do not. The only thing you do is either power creep insanely, if we were to use your values, or drastically reduce the 2 set bonuses resulting in multiple sets being used (effectively reducing rune variety by 66%) due to reduced amount of sets. The overall result would be the same:

• the most efficient bonus would be most expensive
• less desired bonuses would be cheaper with a higher chance of being completely useless since now there is no stats on 1-5

Your assumption that another rework would result in so powerful 2 piece bonuses is pure fantasy.

@Kaidan.6509 said:

@Cyninja.2954 said:

@Kaidan.6509 said:You will have much more creative builds focusing on 3 separate sets instead of everyone running the exact same set.

1. Demand
2. Rarity
3. Highest Cost of similiar runes

True, but given how many the vast majority of the runes are drops and supply is even across those, no even less since undesired runes since those get salvaged less often with expensive salvage kits. It does not explain the even distribution of value, especially with the pre rework values in mind.

@Kaidan.6509 said:The other issue is people may not be able to afford more expensive versions so they find cheaper options then upgrade to the better version when they get enough gold.That means the runes remain in the B team and not considered "viable picks" in their own right.

That is not another issue, it is literally people opting to change to a cheaper set because they do not see enough value in getting the more expensive option. This alone again shows that the 6 piece bonus is obviously not significant enough to encourage people to have to get those sets.

You are completely ignoring the rune rework and the effect it had on the value of runes by the way which actually made variety possible. Before the rune rework, there was 4-5 expensive rune sets and a lot of trash. That was actually people taking only the best in slot runes.

they "recently" reworked runes and sigils, don't expect a new one any soon

and plenty of runes are good, they are just not "the best" but since 95% doesn't care about min maxing anyway, so why parrot a build you once saw and never intend to play to full ability?

for power:

superior rune of thiefsuperior rune of eaglesuperior rune of strenghtsuperior rune of the scholarsuperior rune of the ogresuperior rune of infiltrationsuperior rune of the spellbreakersuperior rune of the mesmersuperior rune of rage

just to name a few, all are "decent" but only a handful are "best"

still, if u are just casually playing and don't care about "the best" or benchmarks then any of these will work just fine

If I remember correctly, one of the studio's intentions with the last update to upgrades was to make having a 6/6 set more viable. I don't see them going in the opposite direction. There will always be a meta for upgrades and the highest meta-rated upgrades will always see the most use and be the most expensive. The studio can not design a solution to that reality.

If the studio wanted to also make the choice of upgrade more about adding flavor and choice, they would need to eliminate the upgrade overwrite mechanic. And they should.It is a concise example of predatory design, using the destruction of player assets to encourage use of the gem shop.Using the destruction of player assets to encourage use of the gem shop likely cannibalizes conversion rates.It reduces the RoI on designing upgrades as build flavor additives or enhancers or any design premise based just on rune consumption and not the gem shop.It is unlikely to reinforce the market for upgrade components. The overwrite mechanic reduces the supply of upgrades but also reduces the demand for upgrades. With a consumer population that puts such high value on collecting and earning rewards, the reduction in demand could offset any gains from the reduction in supply. The overwrite mechanic could be eroding market stability for upgrade components. Binding upgrades and removing the overwrite mechanic would increase demand and reduce supply.

@Psientist.6437 said:It is a concise example of predatory design, using the destruction of player assets to encourage use of the gem shop.

Aehm, yes. When viewed from only the buying party. You are completely ignoring the selling party in this statement.

@Psientist.6437 said:Using the destruction of player assets to encourage use of the gem shop likely cannibalizes conversion rates.

You have not yet shown that the rune system encourages the gem shop, I would assume gold conversion, given how you decided to ignore the supply side in your earlier argument.

@Psientist.6437 said:It is unlikely to reinforce the market for upgrade components. The overwrite mechanic reduces the supply of upgrades but also reduces the demand for upgrades.

That is a very bold statement to make, especially considering that on the one extreme which you are advocating for, demand is literally finite versus permanent constant supply. You would have to go into a lot more detail how you would support the argument that demand and supply are equally affected between the current system of constant demand and constant supply, versus a system of finite demand and constant supply.

As a counter to your assumption, I have 4 full legendary armor sets. My demand for runes on those characters has literally dropped to 0.

Runes were overhauled recently. Some runes are situational to use, others are far more widely used (eg scholar runes in pve dps builds).WvW is the one mode where you see more runes being used for many, many personal roaming/havoc builds. Plus legendary runes are in the making

Cyninja, the existence of the Upgrade Extractor and the overwrite mechanic are enough to demonstrate a relationship between general upgrade topography and the gem shop and to counter most of your objections.

We have to assume that active pathway is doing work.

The selling party you reference includes the studio. We have to assume the studio wants that pathway to do work.

Obviously the upgrade overwrite mechanic reduces the supply of complete upgrades. It follows that it also increases the demand for upgrade crafting components, a broadly positive effect for the playerbase.

The existence of the upgrade slot, upgrades, and variable upgrade traits is responsible for 99.turtles% of the positive demand curve topography for upgrades. The overwrite mechanic can not increase the size of the demand curve topography beyond the potential provided by the upgrade slot, upgrades, and variable upgrade traits. It can erode an upgrade consumers willingness to invest in upgrades.

You exist, have 4 legendary sets and your demand for upgrades has fallen to zero.

@Psientist.6437 said:Cyninja, the existence of the Upgrade Extractor and the overwrite mechanic are enough to demonstrate a relationship between general upgrade topography and the gem shop and to counter most of your objections.

That is nonsense. The upgrade extractors are vastly more expensive than getting a new rune or sigil. Even at their reduced prices since November , the extractors main goal is to salvage not TP available runes and Sigils (for example Leadership runes).

The overwrite mechanic was addressed by the developers (in context of legendary gear too) and yes, its main design is to keep runes and sigils relevant and the exchange healthy on the trading post.

@Psientist.6437 said:We have to assume that active pathway is doing work.

The selling party you reference includes the studio. We have to assume the studio wants that pathway to do work.

The selling party I am referencing is players who can sell their runes/sigils on the trading post for gold. Something which would not be possible if the rune/sigil values drop to nothing.

@Psientist.6437 said:Obviously the upgrade overwrite mechanic reduces the supply of complete upgrades. It follows that it also increases the demand for upgrade crafting components, a broadly positive effect for the playerbase.

Yes, it does. You are incorrect about the demand for crafting components since the vast majority of rune/sigil supply is drops. Evident by the fact that crafting most runes/sigils yield a net loss.

@Psientist.6437 said:You exist, have 4 legendary sets and your demand for upgrades has fallen to zero.

Yes, and that would be the case for every player with ascended gear, should ascended gear become able to exchange runes/sigils at will. There is a reason why the developers specifically mentioned being very careful with these type of implementations.

Given how they last rune/sigil change was designed so that more trade volume and value is done via the trading post, it is unlikely that their position on this subject has changed.

I am fine with runes being not meta.

If they are useful, they'll jump up in price. For me, it means they won't be easily disposable and I can't play around with all of them anymore.

There is a path able to carry a workload of monetization linking general upgrade topography to the gem shop that the studio created and maintains. Whether or nor an individual is willing to accept its existence, purpose and aggregate effect is irrelevant.

I am going to try one more time to describe how the upgrade overwrite mechanic reduces aggregate demand for units of upgrades by telling a story.

Once upon a time there was a Fountain of Value of indeterminate shape and magnitude. The FoV wanted to discover assets where is could store parts of itself and learn a shape. They wanted to be a topography of value vectors connecting asset nodes. They searched. They dug. They danced. They practiced smiling. Their work payed off. They discovered other Fountains of Value like themselves. They discovered an asset topography named General Upgrading of Weapons and Armor or GUoWA. Everyone got busy and the topographical structure called the aggregate demand for upgrade units was born.

If we are quiet, we can eavesdrop on a FoV meeting GUoWA for the first time.

FoV: You had me at open upgrade slot.FoV: Can I see your elemental upgrade unit?FoV: It is ok, I love tawdry messes of unit variety.Upgrade Overwrite Mechanic: Once applied to armor or weapons, you can not change your Upgrade Configuration (UC) without destroying the current UC or pulling my finger and smelling my fart.FoV: Upgrade overwrite mechanic you smell like poo. You know you smell like poo. You are made of negative conditioning.UOM: Makes sense and....?FoV: And since this is the first time I am going to fill my open upgrade slots, you do not have any affect on the number of upgrade units I want to invest a share of my value in. You do pose a risk to my assets as a store of value, so I will reduce my exposure by investing in an Upgrade Configuration that is likely to hold its value. These meta upgrade configurations are likely to hold value but they are more expensive. I will invest in the meta.UOM: That is rational behavior. Did you notice that I haven't increased the number of upgrade units demanded, just encouraged aggregate demand to assume a shape that has a higher potential to achieve maximum aggregate demand for gold?FoV: Yes I did. I want to spend time with Upgrade Configuration A. Bye.UOM: Be seeing you.UCA : Why aren't we poking something?

For a while, Fountain of Value finds value poking around with Upgrade Configuration A, but Fountain of Value is a fountain and fountains are by nature, a babble. FoV discover a need to poke around with Upgrade Configuration B.

FoV: Hello UOM.UOM: Told you I would be seeing you.FoV: I want to switch from UCA to UCB. Because you exist, switching to B destroys A. Both A and B are stores of value. Therefore switching to B costs A's+B's store of value.UOM: Do you want to submit to negative conditioning or not. Pay A+B or pull my finger and keep A. Have you noticed that I increase the cost of poking around with UC 'any letter' and did you know that increasing the cost of poking around with UC 'any letter' reduces aggregate demand for the units comprising UC 'any letter'?FoV: I am actively experiencing that reduction in demand.UOM: If you want to submit to negative conditioning, I am always here.FoV: Goodbye UCA.UCB: You haven't seen poking until you've seen me poke.

For a while, Fountain of Value finds value poking around with Upgrade Configuration B, but Fountain of Value is a fountain and fountains are by nature, a babble. FoV discover a need to poke around with Upgrade Configuration C. And UCD, UCE, UCF, UCG. You see the pattern. Every time FoV changes poking partners, UOM destroys the replaced partner. As long as FoV chooses a different partner, UOM can only increase the cost of changing partners, can only reduce aggregate demand for new partners.

Fountains are by nature, a babble. FoV rediscovers the need to poke around with a partner exactly similar to UCA.

UOM: Hi! Sorry for the intrusion. I am not here to break anything! I just need to point out that this is the only way you can argue I increase aggregate demand for upgrade units.FoV: You have spent all this time reducing my demand for upgrade units and here, were you argue you increase aggregate demand for upgrade units, you can only apply force to the supply of units. You don't make a solid defense of your ability to increase aggregate demand for upgrade units.UOM: If you want to submit to negative conditioning, I am always here.

Cyninja, I may have a way to convince you that the upgrade overwrite mechanic reduces total aggregate demand for upgrade units. Your 4 sets of Legendary make you immune to the upgrade overwrite mechanic. You have purchased every upgrade configuration and represent the maximum for individual demand for upgrade units. Someone equipped in non Legendary is not immune and will never approach that maximum and is unlikely to recycle demand for upgrades destroyed by the overwrite mechanic. Remove the overwrite mechanic, bind upgrades and demand for upgrades and their crafting components explodes and continues burning at the rate the studio creates new upgrades.

Imo, the element that make upgrades unique from armor or weapons is the upgrades ability to supply combat narrative. That combat narrative could depend on the broader combat narrative of class and skills or tell a unique story. The thing that makes upgrades unique makes them naturally collectible.

@Psientist.6437 said:snip

I read your story. I raise you simple logical supply and demand functions:

A.) Current overwrite mechanic causes a constant demand (evident since this was both mentioned by developers as intent and working as intended) by mere reasoning that destruction and removal will create reduction in personal supply. Current supply into the market is constant.

B.) Removing the destruction mechanic removes a major factor of why runes/sigil are demanded (especially in an environment of maxemization). The demand function becomes some what finite (not counting for balance changes, etc., all factors which are present currently).

I should not have to explain how a more finite demand with constant supply will affect the market.

@Psientist.6437 said:Cyninja, I may have a way to convince you that the upgrade overwrite mechanic reduces total aggregate demand for upgrade units. Your 4 sets of Legendary make you immune to the upgrade overwrite mechanic.

They do not make me immune. I would still be required to purchase all upgrades 1nce. My desire to do so is removed since with knowledge that I only need the upgrades 1nce also comes the ability to go for the best-in-slot upgrades since I will never have to replace them.

Net result: I neither have recurring demand on best-in-slot runes AND value of not top tier run sets is driven lower for me.

@Psientist.6437 said:You have purchased every upgrade configuration and represent the maximum for individual demand for upgrade units.

Incorrect. I have purchased every upgrade I desire, mostly best-in-slot upgrades with no regard for less useful runes. This is even further aggravated since carrying more than the best-in-slot runes creates inventory issues, another resource which I have to manage.

@Psientist.6437 said:Someone equipped in non Legendary is not immune and will never approach that maximum and is unlikely to recycle demand for upgrades destroyed by the overwrite mechanic.

Again, incorrect and not supported by what is happening in game, developer communication on the matter and your incorrect assumption about which upgrades get used and for what reasons.

Someone subject to regular ascended gear will:

• upgrade and replace runes
• will not upgrade and replace runes
• will opt for cheaper alternatives if required or desired

@Psientist.6437 said:Remove the overwrite mechanic, bind upgrades and demand for upgrades and their crafting components explodes and continues burning at the rate the studio creates new upgrades.

Again, crafting is not a significant factor in rune supply.