Resource mechanics need to go and competitive gameplay will be better for it - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

Resource mechanics need to go and competitive gameplay will be better for it

2

Comments

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Psycoprophet.8107 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    in wvw all toons should have the same available wvw skills and weapons.

    but you can only choose a combination to specialize.

    this way no more profession shaming.

    Sounds good but than u'd be see alot of post saying this skill combo's OP or this weapon set is OP etc etc as everyone can run the builds they complain about right now but they choose to play classes they like instead which is good. Ud literally have to have all classes be one class basically,same dps on all skills,same range,durations on effects and same utility skills,only different skins if u wanted real balance. This is literally everyone would uninstall the game as soon as that happened as it become a really boring experience with lack of identity through the classes.

    we dont know that. it hasnt happened yet. and final fantasy is doing it and its still strong.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2, 2019

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Psycoprophet.8107 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    in wvw all toons should have the same available wvw skills and weapons.

    but you can only choose a combination to specialize.

    this way no more profession shaming.

    Sounds good but than u'd be see alot of post saying this skill combo's OP or this weapon set is OP etc etc as everyone can run the builds they complain about right now but they choose to play classes they like instead which is good. Ud literally have to have all classes be one class basically,same dps on all skills,same range,durations on effects and same utility skills,only different skins if u wanted real balance. This is literally everyone would uninstall the game as soon as that happened as it become a really boring experience with lack of identity through the classes.

    we dont know that. it hasnt happened yet. and final fantasy is doing it and its still strong.

    I'm not saying it isn't a good method I'm just saying wont change poor balancing as op skills and builds are OP whether one class has it or all. Cheese is cheese and without proper balancing I'd still end up the winner is who out cheesed the other just like how gw2 is right now lol. If the balancing is poor now that wouldn't change it.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Psycoprophet.8107 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @Psycoprophet.8107 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    in wvw all toons should have the same available wvw skills and weapons.

    but you can only choose a combination to specialize.

    this way no more profession shaming.

    Sounds good but than u'd be see alot of post saying this skill combo's OP or this weapon set is OP etc etc as everyone can run the builds they complain about right now but they choose to play classes they like instead which is good. Ud literally have to have all classes be one class basically,same dps on all skills,same range,durations on effects and same utility skills,only different skins if u wanted real balance. This is literally everyone would uninstall the game as soon as that happened as it become a really boring experience with lack of identity through the classes.

    we dont know that. it hasnt happened yet. and final fantasy is doing it and its still strong.

    I'm not saying it isn't a good method I'm just saying wont change poor balancing as op skills and builds are OP whether one class has it or all. Cheese is cheese and without proper balancing I'd still end up the winner is who out cheesed the other just like how gw2 is right now lol. If the balancing is poor now that wouldn't change it.

    actually it can be balanced if everyone has it all. and nerfs buffs can change the tide every now and then.

    right now, there is also one more factor at play. not everyone is good.

    ideally everyone knows how to play but i.e. ppl below tier 2 are generally bad at team work if individually are not bad.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

  • Lord Trejgon.2809Lord Trejgon.2809 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 13, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing... And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Finally the devs are paying real attention to professions in the game, and resources should be another area for evaluation. And the original designs of the game have proven their major flaws, so you should start realizing that.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 13, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing...

    GW2 isn't "other games", so nobody cares what "other games" can and can't do. How is this even an argument. You idea is bad, you agreed with that statement, changed nothing and yet you're still arguing about something here for the sake of arguing.

    And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Wrong.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing...

    GW2 isn't "other games", so nobody cares what "other games" can and can't do. How is this even an argument. You idea is bad, you agreed with that statement, changed nothing and yet you're still arguing about something here for the sake of arguing.

    And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Wrong.

    Yet again you show lack of understanding of this topic and of the game...

    Yeah, "wrong" lol... "Jon P: For whatever reason we came up with the initiative mechanic, we were like “this is cool, put it on thief!” Design thief skills: “Oh yeah, they should have these dual skills!” We put them in the game, people played them and were instantly like “thieves are the most fun thing in the game now!”

    Next you're going to tell me that Anet primarily designed professions to be balanced against one another, as opposed to profession difficulty scaling instead.... Let me guess, you also think pvp combat is what professions, elites, and stuff like stealth and the condition system were primarily designed for? You must also think that potential changes to balance professions better for pvp modes haven't been made because the game has been so well balanced, not to avoid screwing over the pve side of the game?

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 13, 2019

    @Sobx.1758 said:
    GW2 isn't "other games", so nobody cares what "other games" can and can't do.

    I think this comment is more important than one first might imagine.
    This thread has taken a turn for the worse and the tone isn't very constructive anymore (though, forums, noise, I get it). However in all this talk about what kind of balance or systemic design that GW2 has the answer is pretty obvious: It has GW2's design and most people who still play the game do it because of the design that GW2 has (or had). It is fine to discuss issues that revolve around specialist energy mechanics. That is a fair discussion. If the entire discussion turns into a debate about trinity systems or rock-paper systems however you are discussing something that isn't GW2 and things that would make GW2 not GW2 if introduced.

    What GW2 is, is not that hard to deduce. It's a game that has always been primarily balanced around party scale (5). The further out you go from there the more balance issues have appeared. It is also a system where everyone has always been a damage dealer + something else; meaning that originally no one simply had a role as a damage dealer. Instead everyone was different kinds of damage dealers combined with something else. Damage dealing was, in fact, just like that article discusses about oldschool trinity something that had a backseat role in GW2. It is something everyone did but something no one really identified as. Even among classes that were, for example, focus damage dealers, the notable aspect was the focus and not the damage.

    There are so many people, with oppinions, who do not spend enough time thinking, reading and making arguments these days that there is so much noise now that it's easy to lose track of how GW2's systems work(ed) and how that was good. For example, there is noise from all kinds of directions now about the downstate system. Few people stop to consider how integral that system is to what makes GW2, GW2. It's not just under fire from people who want the no-downstate week but from how the game is moving from player-ressing to ability-ressing now for example. That is, in fact, a quite controversial change but few people are paying attention to it or are voicing caution to the developers how it is an important piece laid out next to other pieces in the balance.

    Not to sound too conservative but there is quite alot of gains to be made from simply looking at vanilla. It doesn't have to be the same, but it can surely be a primary source of inspiration because with all the pieces of puzzle on the table, that is what the game was originally built for and there are going to be old systems that new systems need to be able to talk to and translate into something good.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 13, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing...

    GW2 isn't "other games", so nobody cares what "other games" can and can't do. How is this even an argument. You idea is bad, you agreed with that statement, changed nothing and yet you're still arguing about something here for the sake of arguing.

    And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Wrong.

    Yet again you show lack of understanding of this topic and of the game...

    In what way? Both topic and the game, obviously.

    Yeah, "wrong" lol... "Jon P: For whatever reason we came up with the initiative mechanic, we were like “this is cool, put it on thief!” Design thief skills: “Oh yeah, they should have these dual skills!” We put them in the game, people played them and were instantly like “thieves are the most fun thing in the game now!”

    That doesn't mean they aren't supposed to be balanced, it's easy to guess that a lot of things existing in a game -ANY game- is implemented because it's "cool"/"fun"/"call it however else you want, who cares", because otherwise nobody would play it. How is this quote/claim even showing anything regarding the balance?

    Next you're going to tell me that Anet primarily designed professions to be balanced against one another, as opposed to profession difficulty scaling instead.... Let me guess, you also think pvp combat is what professions, elites, and stuff like stealth and the condition system were primarily designed for? You must also think that potential changes to balance professions better for pvp modes haven't been made because the game has been so well balanced, not to avoid screwing over the pve side of the game?

    lmao, what are you even talking about and where exactly did that come from? Feel free to quote me while explaining, because that makes absolutely no sense, gj. :DDon't forget about the post where I literally said that if you want true balance, you'd need to remove the class system. Great effort at ridiculing, though -maybe next time you'll do better.

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing... And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Finally the devs are paying real attention to professions in the game, and resources should be another area for evaluation. And the original designs of the game have proven their major flaws, so you should start realizing that.

    Your point being? The fact that WoW chooses to not have any resource-less classes (Caveat: Mana classes tend to just be resource-less effectively, so they do) doesnt change the fact that different classes have different gates for their skills. Thats good game design.

    Yes, the majority of video games have common core designs. Having different resource systems, including optionally resource-less (I.e. only cooldown gated) ones is one of those "common core designs". Thats the part you dont get. You think GW2 is some special case, while in reality, its the norm. And what you are proposing? That would be the special case.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 13, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing... And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Finally the devs are paying real attention to professions in the game, and resources should be another area for evaluation. And the original designs of the game have proven their major flaws, so you should start realizing that.

    Your point being? The fact that WoW chooses to not have any resource-less classes (Caveat: Mana classes tend to just be resource-less effectively, so they do) doesnt change the fact that different classes have different gates for their skills. Thats good game design.

    Yes, the majority of video games have common core designs. Having different resource systems, including optionally resource-less (I.e. only cooldown gated) ones is one of those "common core designs". Thats the part you dont get. You think GW2 is some special case, while in reality, its the norm. And what you are proposing? That would be the special case.

    Point being your claim about things becoming the same are factually false. How many games do I need to bring up so you can understand?

    I want you to tell me how many times this necro was able to use their class mechanic to a meaningful degree in this video... Go ahead and count...

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 13, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @Sobx.1758 "lmao, what are you even talking about and where exactly did that come from?" You really don't understand the purpose of that paragraph? Really?

    That paragraph makes no sense and implies I might think something that I literally already contradicted.
    And pretty sure I do understand the purpose of that paragraph: it's an attempt to ridicule me despite anything I said before, because you have nothing to answer. Too bad it failed and now, again, you have nothing to say about it, so instead you wrote... this, whatever it's supposed to be.

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing... And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Finally the devs are paying real attention to professions in the game, and resources should be another area for evaluation. And the original designs of the game have proven their major flaws, so you should start realizing that.

    Your point being? The fact that WoW chooses to not have any resource-less classes (Caveat: Mana classes tend to just be resource-less effectively, so they do) doesnt change the fact that different classes have different gates for their skills. Thats good game design.

    Yes, the majority of video games have common core designs. Having different resource systems, including optionally resource-less (I.e. only cooldown gated) ones is one of those "common core designs". Thats the part you dont get. You think GW2 is some special case, while in reality, its the norm. And what you are proposing? That would be the special case.

    Point being your claim about things becoming the same are factually false. How many games do I need to bring up so you can understand?

    I want you to tell me how many times this necro was able to use their class mechanic to a meaningful degree in this video... Go ahead and count...

    You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point. I have brought up dozens that completely disprove your point. Face the facts, GW2s system is the norm, your lovely idea of having everyone use the exact same system is the major exception. Yknow why? Because its not good design. It makes it harder to balance (fewer levers to pull), lowers gameplay diversity and brings nothing to the table.

  • Guys, I have a small favour from all of ya to ask - can You snip the history of nested quotes you are doing? I'm receiving alot of notification about"responses" from this thread that are in no way relevant to my input anymore xD

    Thanks in advance ;)

  • ArchonWing.9480ArchonWing.9480 Member ✭✭✭✭

    It's why I turn off notifications. 95% of the time you're not going to read anything useful anyways.

    Probably higher for this thread.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing... And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Finally the devs are paying real attention to professions in the game, and resources should be another area for evaluation. And the original designs of the game have proven their major flaws, so you should start realizing that.

    Your point being? The fact that WoW chooses to not have any resource-less classes (Caveat: Mana classes tend to just be resource-less effectively, so they do) doesnt change the fact that different classes have different gates for their skills. Thats good game design.

    Yes, the majority of video games have common core designs. Having different resource systems, including optionally resource-less (I.e. only cooldown gated) ones is one of those "common core designs". Thats the part you dont get. You think GW2 is some special case, while in reality, its the norm. And what you are proposing? That would be the special case.

    Point being your claim about things becoming the same are factually false. How many games do I need to bring up so you can understand?

    I want you to tell me how many times this necro was able to use their class mechanic to a meaningful degree in this video... Go ahead and count...

    You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point. I have brought up dozens that completely disprove your point. Face the facts, GW2s system is the norm, your lovely idea of having everyone use the exact same system is the major exception. Yknow why? Because its not good design. It makes it harder to balance (fewer levers to pull), lowers gameplay diversity and brings nothing to the table.

    You edited out where you acknowledged the issue with necro btw...

    You supported my point, but you are ignoring that. And I already brought up a game (that offered players way more on the class front) and we discussed wow... Wow uses global cooldowns on some skills and individual skill timers for EACH class, and EACH class uses a resource... That's the foundation design of ALL classes in that game.

    I honestly believe you don't understand this topic, or you are intentionally ignoring the facts. And this is just not true "GW2s system is the norm", unless GW2 is your first video game and you don't know any better. Also, these are clearly show inexperience with games.... "It makes it harder to balance (fewer levers to pull), lowers gameplay diversity and brings nothing to the table."

  • Whiteout.1975Whiteout.1975 Member ✭✭✭

    The only thing I hate is that the chill condition doesn't consider initiative as a factor when slowing cooldowns. Like it could slow the rate that is gained still some... So this I have more of an issue with.

    Honestly, at the end of the day... I don't see it necessary to remove/nuke those resource mechanics though. This still ultimately just amounts to time and cost. Besides that, I think it's a matter of treating mechanics more fairly (like mentioned above) despite being different given that their purposes are ultimately the same. Also, I like the fact that the resources are different because that just enhances feel of what makes each class/profession more unique from the rest IMO.

    "You can't have quality population balance without quality participation." 🤯

    ~ Me

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing... And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Finally the devs are paying real attention to professions in the game, and resources should be another area for evaluation. And the original designs of the game have proven their major flaws, so you should start realizing that.

    Your point being? The fact that WoW chooses to not have any resource-less classes (Caveat: Mana classes tend to just be resource-less effectively, so they do) doesnt change the fact that different classes have different gates for their skills. Thats good game design.

    Yes, the majority of video games have common core designs. Having different resource systems, including optionally resource-less (I.e. only cooldown gated) ones is one of those "common core designs". Thats the part you dont get. You think GW2 is some special case, while in reality, its the norm. And what you are proposing? That would be the special case.

    Point being your claim about things becoming the same are factually false. How many games do I need to bring up so you can understand?

    I want you to tell me how many times this necro was able to use their class mechanic to a meaningful degree in this video... Go ahead and count...

    You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point. I have brought up dozens that completely disprove your point. Face the facts, GW2s system is the norm, your lovely idea of having everyone use the exact same system is the major exception. Yknow why? Because its not good design. It makes it harder to balance (fewer levers to pull), lowers gameplay diversity and brings nothing to the table.

    You edited out where you acknowledged the issue with necro btw...

    You supported my point, but you are ignoring that. And I already brought up a game (that offered players way more on the class front) and we discussed wow... Wow uses global cooldowns on some skills and individual skill timers for EACH class, and EACH class uses a resource... That's the foundation design of ALL classes in that game.

    I honestly believe you don't understand this topic, or you are intentionally ignoring the facts. And this is just not true "GW2s system is the norm", unless GW2 is your first video game and you don't know any better. Also, these are clearly show inexperience with games.... "It makes it harder to balance (fewer levers to pull), lowers gameplay diversity and brings nothing to the table."

    I will repeat myself only once more. Yes, in GW2 each class uses a resource. As does GW2. In some cases its just "cooldowns", others have more. Your original point was "Having different resources is bad, everyone should use the same resource". When people pointed out to you that the number of MMOs where all classes use the same resources is like, 1-2 out of a couple dozen, you then moved your goalposts to "having resource-based and resource-less classes in the same game is bad". Allow me to dismantle that as well. Take League. The biggest, most successful game in the world. Guess what? Yep, it has resourceless and resource-based champions. Had them since the very start. Most mobas do, youve got HotS, Battlerite (its MOBA-Adjacent but I count it), Smite, and so on. Fighting games have both. Shooters have both. Its the standard.

    And no, the only one inexperienced with games is you who is seriously trying to argue that lowering gameplay diversity and having fewer levers to pull somehow improves the game. Different resources has clearly shown in many, many games to make balancing easier and more effective. But lets be real here, its not like youre going to listen, you have made up your mind, and no matter how many facts show youre wrong, youre not gonna change.

  • Jugglemonkey.8741Jugglemonkey.8741 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    Critical Kit, Deadeye.
    “If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.” - John Steinbeck

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    The only ones I can think of that dont use alternative resources at all are ESO and BDO.

    actually BDO does use alternative resources - Mana, Stamina and Willpower if memory serves. Every class there has only one of these and have different ways to manage that resource.

    EDIT: and even if one tried to pull it under "but it's same mechanic just with different colour", One - the methods of managing said resources can vary to the point where it isn't really, Two - it still doesn't make BDO any more balanced than GW2 is - I'd even argue it's balancing is a much worse clusterduck.

    I stand corrected then. I hadnt really played BDO much, so I may have just hit several classes using the same resource.> @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:
    And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns. Also, to go back to WoW, the truth is that in a lot of scenarios, most of the classes might as well not have resources. Its difficult to run out of mana in any half-decent rotation. So you have the same effectively resourceless system as GW2, and then you have Rogues who are in fact heavily reliant on their resources. And again, thats just WoW. To put it bluntly, your idea of what the average MMO is, or the average, the idea of "foundations", applies to the vast minority of MMOs. The majority of MMOs follow a design similiar to that of GW2. Youre simply out of touch with how MMOs, or games, are designed.

    The point is less "everything becomes the same" and more "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all". Having more levers to pull doesnt make balancing harder, it makes it easier. The fact that GW2s balance isnt exactly idea doesnt change that. For that matter, do you understand what your idea would do? Thief would be essentially deleted and replaced by an entirely new class. And I dont even mean that as an exaggeration. You literally have to delete all of the skills and make new ones. Because the skills thief has arent compatible with a cooldown system. This isnt even just creating a new class, its creating a new class while trying to maintain some semblance of the old one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you will have difficulty making the new thiefs playstyle distinct from Mesmers and Revenants.

    To put it bluntly, usually bad ideas at least have a salvageable core. Yours does not. There is nothing salvageable in here. Hence why it should never even be considered, and why it wont ever be considered.

    "And GW2 is built around a resource use. That resource being cooldowns."... Do we play the same game here? So Thief, Rev, Necro Shroud and Druid CA are all about cooldown? No they are not, hence this thread.

    Edit- And nice deflection away from the fact that wow (and the plethora of other mmos) has a resource for every class, but they are still unique, not the same, classes built around a common resource design.

    To put bluntly, you are wrong, or you don't have a lot of experience with mmos… Read and pay attention...

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    This is something I want to add to the conversation, and it has to do with profession difficulty scaling and imbalances by design...

    I completely understand the reasoning behind certain profession design choices, but the way it was done has created unnecessarily imbalances between profession inside of wvw and spvp modes...

    http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/06/exclusive-interview-arenanets-jon-peters-and-jonathan-sharp/

    "Gigashadow (GW2G): The warrior seems an easy profession to get into, with a high skill floor and a very simple profession mechanic

    Jon P: yes, it’s probably the easiest one to get there. But only one in a million people have reached the level of a warrior that really sets them apart. If you’ve seen any Guild Wars 1 we had The Last Pride, a Korean guild, and they had a warrior called Last of Master and there is no one I have seen who is even close to him."

    That statement by Jon P clearly shows you can have common simplified mechanics and designs across all profession, while still producing highly skilled players and combat gameplay... A GW2 Warrior is straight forward, and the main focus is on mastering weapons, skills, positioning... Meanwhile, for example, the team made the main focus of learning to master Elementalist about fighting without a 2nd weapon and imposing a disadvantageous choice between being melee, mid range or long range during combat... on top of Attunement swapping PLUS needing to also master weapons, skills, positioning... The main focus of Revenant is learning to micromanage Energy and swapping legends, on top of other areas just mentioned...

    As stated in the op, yeah, sure things are unique, but it was unnecessary to force in these unbalanced designs knowing simple is "cleaner" and still requires skill to perform at higher levels. And I dare to say that the team knew there would be more balance between profession performance with simpler designs and common mechanics across all professions, but opted out in favor of "has to be different first" as mentioned in my op.

    By comparison, City of Heroes made distinct and unique classes, powersets and roles, but still managed to make things more balanced... How so Swagger?

    ALL of these classes https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetypes used https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance as the main skill resource.

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools or https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools that "The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc."

    ALL classes had access to https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations and could slot up to 20 of them... 20 instant and on demand "potions" at any given time!

    So we need to ask ourselves how a game that allowed players to play unique classes and powersets still offered the exact same core mechanics across the board? How was that team able to give ALL characters access to optional things like invisibility, flight, super speed, teleporting, personal healing, "stun breaks", KB protection, damage skills... while still offering a huge palate of unique classes, skills and roles to play? Yet GW2...

    Also a quote from that interview...

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."... And so was City of Heroes. All classes had offensive skills to choose from, yet each still offered players many fun, and viable, roles to play. This is not so true with GW2 as it stands because those role choices, weapons, skills, traits... are very limited in pvp and wvw by comparison...

    I will try to look up the quote, but IIRC... Arenanet always planned on creating GW2 to be E-Sports competitive, yet there was way too much focus on unique and different core mechanics that forced these extreme imbalances... that we still have today. That's why E-Sports didn't hold, and that why you see all these major class complaints from players participating in spvp and wvw… The majority want fun, balance and viable options first, not scaling profession difficulty and forced imbalances that make hard designed rock- paper-scissors combat scenarios and limited viable build options...

    Gonna stop here...GW2 is a great game, but I feel things need to further evolve away from these old design concepts and ways of thinking that I'm quoting below... And more players would be accepting if the team made greater strides towards having professions more balanced at the core and mechanics levels... And I don't see negativity coming from players if roles, such as healing and support, were made better than what we have been given up to this point, and if the team really looked to creating optional skills that balanced out classes better... just like CoH did with great success.

    "Jon P: The average complexity for professions is going up."

    "Jon P: The whole game is built very offensively on purpose."

    "Jon P: When we actually made the decision to not have healers"

    "Jon P: I use this example all the time – in Guild Wars 1 the Shadow Step ability on assassins. If only assassins could have done that, they would have been this very, very unique class; but as soon as we introduced secondary professions everyone could shadow step. Monks are shadow stepping, warriors are shadow stepping, and assassins as a result weren’t as ‘cool’ as they could have been. They didn’t fulfill that sneaky archetype in the way they really could have, because everyone could do what they could do."

    And in WoW, Rogues, Monks, Hunters and Death Knights arent gated by mana. They have different resources. Having different resources is fine. Every MMO except ESO (apparently even BDO uses different resources) has different resources.

    And every class in GW2 has a resource. The nature of the resources however is different. The classes are unique in no small part due to the fact that many of them have very different resources. The only one wrong and inexperienced in MMOs here is you.

    What you are not processing is that all classes in wow use cooldown for skills and resources. Gw2 uses cool downs, but resources only on some professions and especs... Or are you not aware of this fact?

    Your argument is like saying if wow removed all the resource mechanics from the game, and off of every class, then classes would be homogenized... And that’s an argument you’re making here, and it’s obviously false or you just don’t understand...

    I can guarantee that the majority of video games have common core designs for their classes that serve as the foundation for designing and balancing... And for example, Initiative wasn’t put on thieves in the name of “balance”, it was put on thief because of “it would be fun”...

    Finally the devs are paying real attention to professions in the game, and resources should be another area for evaluation. And the original designs of the game have proven their major flaws, so you should start realizing that.

    Your point being? The fact that WoW chooses to not have any resource-less classes (Caveat: Mana classes tend to just be resource-less effectively, so they do) doesnt change the fact that different classes have different gates for their skills. Thats good game design.

    Yes, the majority of video games have common core designs. Having different resource systems, including optionally resource-less (I.e. only cooldown gated) ones is one of those "common core designs". Thats the part you dont get. You think GW2 is some special case, while in reality, its the norm. And what you are proposing? That would be the special case.

    Point being your claim about things becoming the same are factually false. How many games do I need to bring up so you can understand?

    I want you to tell me how many times this necro was able to use their class mechanic to a meaningful degree in this video... Go ahead and count...

    You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point. I have brought up dozens that completely disprove your point. Face the facts, GW2s system is the norm, your lovely idea of having everyone use the exact same system is the major exception. Yknow why? Because its not good design. It makes it harder to balance (fewer levers to pull), lowers gameplay diversity and brings nothing to the table.

    You edited out where you acknowledged the issue with necro btw...

    You supported my point, but you are ignoring that. And I already brought up a game (that offered players way more on the class front) and we discussed wow... Wow uses global cooldowns on some skills and individual skill timers for EACH class, and EACH class uses a resource... That's the foundation design of ALL classes in that game.

    I honestly believe you don't understand this topic, or you are intentionally ignoring the facts. And this is just not true "GW2s system is the norm", unless GW2 is your first video game and you don't know any better. Also, these are clearly show inexperience with games.... "It makes it harder to balance (fewer levers to pull), lowers gameplay diversity and brings nothing to the table."

    I will repeat myself only once more. Yes, in GW2 each class uses a resource. As does GW2. In some cases its just "cooldowns", others have more. Your original point was "Having different resources is bad, everyone should use the same resource". When people pointed out to you that the number of MMOs where all classes use the same resources is like, 1-2 out of a couple dozen, you then moved your goalposts to "having resource-based and resource-less classes in the same game is bad". Allow me to dismantle that as well. Take League. The biggest, most successful game in the world. Guess what? Yep, it has resourceless and resource-based champions. Had them since the very start. Most mobas do, youve got HotS, Battlerite (its MOBA-Adjacent but I count it), Smite, and so on. Fighting games have both. Shooters have both. Its the standard.

    And no, the only one inexperienced with games is you who is seriously trying to argue that lowering gameplay diversity and having fewer levers to pull somehow improves the game. Different resources has clearly shown in many, many games to make balancing easier and more effective. But lets be real here, its not like youre going to listen, you have made up your mind, and no matter how many facts show youre wrong, youre not gonna change.

    I have a more detailed post coming later, but what “resource” does a guardian use? What “resource“ does a Mesmer use? What “resource” does a Revenant use?

    And news flash, a skill timer isn’t a “resource”, so you should learn the differences between a skill recharge timer and something like the Life Force RESOURCE on Necro...

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132

    “lowers gameplay diversity”

    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"

    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    You tell me when GW2 has more "diversity and design space" than a game that came out 1 year before GW1, that used 1 common resource called "Endurance" for all classes.... I'll be waiting...

    BLASTER
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Blaster
    “The Blaster is an offensive juggernaut. This hero can deal a ton of damage from a distance. But the Blaster must be careful, because he's somewhat fragile compared to other heroes. The Blaster can't stand toe to toe with most opponents at melee for long. His best defense is a great offense!
    The Blaster's power sets are:
    Primary: Ranged
    Secondary: Support”

    Primary Power Sets
    “A Blaster's primary power sets are designed specifically for ranged attacks. They are:”

    Secondary Power Sets
    “A Blaster's secondary power sets are designed for support via melee attacks, minor crowd control powers, or temporary self-buffs. They are:”

    Inherent Power

    • https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Defiance
      “Blasters’ earliest abilities come so naturally to them, that they are accessible even in states that normally prevent them from using powers, such as being Held, Slept or Stunned. Additionally, each time the Blaster attacks with a primary or secondary power, they gain a stacking damage bonus for the next several seconds. The amount of the damage bonus and its duration is dependent on the exact power used, with single target abilities generally giving the largest bonus.”

    BRUTE
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Brute
    “Brutes live to fight, and as a Brute you revel in hand-to-hand combat. With strong offensive power sets to inflict pain and impressive defenses to take it, you're the best there is in a straight fight. Protracted battles only makes you mad, and the madder you get, the more damaging your attacks become. You do lack ranged attacks, which could leave you vulnerable to hit and run tactics without some allies to cover you.
    The Brute's power sets are:
    Primary: Melee
    Secondary: Defense”

    “Primary Power Sets
     A Brute's primary power sets are designed specifically for melee. They are:”

    “Secondary Power Sets
     A Brute's secondary power sets are designed for defense. They are:”

    Inherent Power
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Fury

    “As a Brute engages in combat, it unleashes his Fury. The longer he remains in combat, attacking and being attacked, the more damage he deals.
    A Brute's Fury level is shown by an orange bar between Endurance and Experience Points. It rises each time he makes an attack or is attacked himself (regardless of hit or miss). The speed at which it rises is directly proportional to the recklessness of the Brute.”

    CORRUPTOR
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Corruptor
    “Corrupters twist the forces of the universe to do their bidding. As a corruptor, you might strike your foes down with blasts of fire, entomb them in ice, infect them with radiation, or curse them with pure darkness. As your foes are weakened, your scourge ability kicks in, increasing your damage to an enemy as their hit points drop. You can even impart a portion of your twisted power to your allies to protect them from harm, heal them, or increase the damage they deal. This wide array of abilities comes at a price. Your defenses aren't strong, and you can quickly attract the ire of your enemies if you aren't careful.
    The Corruptor's power sets are:
    Primary: Ranged
    Secondary: Buff”

    Primary Power Sets
    A Corruptor's primary power sets are designed for ranged attacks. They are:

    Secondary Power Sets
     A Corruptor's secondary power sets are designed for buffing or debuffing. They are:

    Inherent Power
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Scourge
    “The Corruptor is a dastardly villain indeed. As a Corruptor's foe health wanes, the Corruptor can start to land Scourge hits with his attack powers for up to double damage. The weaker the target is, the greater chance the Corruptor has of landing Scourge. Once a foe is weak enough, there is no escaping the Corruptor's wrath. A Corruptor shows no mercy.
    Scourge offers no chance of critical damage until the target has less than 50% health. The chance then smoothly increases to 100% once the target has only 10% or less of its health remaining. These percentages are based on the target's base health -- targets with large health boosts from powers can effectively delay the point at which Scourge damage starts being possible.”

    DEFENDER
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Defender
    “The Defender tends to help his allies, and attack his foes, from a distance. The Defender excels at powers that assist friends, but can also hinder his enemies. The Defender is able to attack at quite a range, however, the Defender is not built for hand to hand. He might be able to dodge a few attacks, but the Defender won't last for long.
    The Defender's power sets are:
    Primary: Buff
    Secondary: Ranged”

    Primary Power Sets
    A Defender's primary power sets are designed specifically for buffing or debuffing. They are:

    Secondary Power Sets
    A Defender's secondary power sets are designed for ranged attacks. They are:

    Inherent Power
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Vigilance
    “The Defender's primary focus is to protect the team. When his allies are in danger, the Defender is able to look deep within him or herself and rise to the occasion. As a Defender's teammates are in danger of being defeated, the Defender gains an Endurance Discount and can activate their powers at a reduced cost. The more teammates in trouble, the greater the discount.”

    DOMINATOR
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Dominator
    “As a Dominator, you control a devastating combination of control and assault powers. A Dominator can freeze foes in place, render them unconscious, or cause them to flee in terror. Dominators can also smite their foes with a selection of single-target melee and ranged attacks, with devastating effectiveness. Additionally, each time a Dominator attacks, he comes closer to unleashing his true sadistic power of Domination. With so much emphasis on diverse offensive powers, Dominators lack in defenses and work best with teammates who can provide protection.
    The Dominator's power sets are:
    Primary: Control
    Secondary: Assault”

    Primary Power Sets
    A Dominator's primary power sets are designed for controlling enemies. They are:

    Secondary Power Sets
    A Dominator's secondary power sets are designed for assault. They are:

    Inherent Power
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Domination
    “Nothing delights a Dominator more than inflicting pain. When a Dominator attacks, his sadistic nature grows. When your Domination bar is over 90% you can activate this power to unleash his true potential. Your control powers will typically last 50% longer and will more easily Dominate stronger opponents. Additionally, you will completely recover your Endurance. Domination lasts for 90 seconds and recharges in 200 seconds. The recharge can be reduced by self and ally buffs, but cannot be slotted with enhancements.
    Domination protects the villain from Knockback/Knockup, Repel, Disorient, Hold, Sleep, Immobilize, Fear, and Confuse effects, and can be activated even while suffering from them to break the villain free.
    Domination doubles the magnitude of the villain's own Disorient, Hold, Sleep, Immobilize, Fear, and Confuse effects for their normal durations, then keeps them going at normal magnitude for half that amount of time longer. Debuffs and other secondary effects are not improved.”

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @UNOwen.7132

    SCRAPPER
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Scrapper
    “The Scrapper is a fierce melee combatant. In hand to hand, no other hero can compare. But the Scrapper is not as resilient as the Tanker, and might find himself in a little trouble if he heedlessly wades into combat. The Scrapper's aptitude for melee is countered by a total lack of long distance attacks. Scrappers possess Critical strike capability. Their melee attacks have a chance to sometimes do double damage.
    The Scrapper's power sets are:
    Primary: Melee
    Secondary: Defense”

    Primary Power Sets
    A Scrapper's primary power sets are designed specifically for melee. They are:

    Secondary Power Sets
    A Scrapper's secondary power sets are designed for defense. They are:

    Inherent Powers
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Critical_Hit
    “The Scrapper is a fierce melee combatant. In hand to hand, no other hero can compare. All Scrapper melee attacks have a chance to land a Critical Hit for up to double damage. The higher the rank of the target, the greater the chance for a successful Critical Hit.”

    STALKER
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Stalker
    “Skill can divert clumsy raw power, and precisely applied force can solve many problems. As a Stalker, this is the core of your specialty. You do your best work when attacking from ambush, and can even hide in plain sight to escape foes. Deadly attacks and good defenses make you a dangerous combatant and assassin, but you can be overwhelmed if you're not careful.
    The Stalker's power sets are:
    Primary: Melee
    Secondary: Defense”

    Primary Power Sets
    A Stalker's primary power sets are designed for stealth and melee. They are:

    Secondary Power Sets
    A Stalker's secondary power sets are designed for stealth and defense. They are:

    Inherent Power
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Assassination
    “A Stalker does his best work when attacking from ambush. When properly 'Hidden", a Stalker can pull off Critical hits with his attacks, and even land a massive 'Assassins Strike' with an assassin's power. Assassin Strikes made from hide will Demoralize the Stalker's foes leaving them with a reduced chance to hit and has a chance to terrorize them. Additionally, a Stalker has a 10 percent base chance to critically hit, which is increased by an additional 3 percent per member in your party, against non-player enemies. Stalkers have a chance to land a critical hit against players if they are Held or Slept. Each of the Stalker's damaging powers within their primary power set, other than Assassin's Strike, have a chance to grant the Stalker a stack of Assassin's Focus. Each stack of this buff boosts Assassin's Strike's chance to critically (hit while the user is not hidden) by 33.3%. Assassin's Focus stacks up to 3 times.”

    TANKER
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Tanker
    “The Tanker can take it and dish it out all at once. The Tanker primarily can absorb vast amounts of damage, and hold his own in a fist fight. But the Tanker lacks any long range punch. The Tanker would prefer just to charge straight ahead anyway.
    The Tanker's power sets are:
    Primary: Defense
    Secondary: Melee”

    Primary Power Sets
    A Tanker's primary power sets are designed specifically for defense. They are:

    Secondary Power Sets
    A Tanker's secondary power sets are designed for melee. They are:

    Inherent Powers
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Gauntlet
    “Although many try, few can withstand the irresistible force of the Tanker. Each time a Tanker attacks, he enrages the target, and those around him, enticing them to attack the Tanker. Each punch continues to provoke your enemies and allows the Tanker to do what he does best.”

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Bruising
    “Bruising is a damage resistance debuff that was added to the game in Issue 18.
    On a successful hit, any tier 1 Tanker secondary power set attack will bruise an enemy target. This bruising effect causes a resistible 20% damage resistance debuff which lasts for 10 seconds. Bruising cannot stack, even if there are multiple tankers attacking the same target; thus, it is a good idea for multiple tankers to spread attacks out on the whole spawn.”

    CONTROLLER
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Controller
    “The Controller is at the same time the weakest and yet the most powerful of the archetypes. The Controller has few offensive attacks and possesses few hit points. But the Controller has access to a range of powers and abilities that no one else does. Armed with these powers, a Controller can affect the behavior of villains, from freezing them in place, to putting them to sleep, to routing them away. Armed with such abilities, the Controller is the backbone for any super group, but the Controller depends upon their teammates for protection.
    The Controller's power sets are:
    Primary: Control
    Secondary: Buff”

    Primary Power Sets
    A Controller's primary power sets are designed specifically for control. They are:

    Secondary Power Sets
    A Controller's secondary power sets are designed for buffing or debuffing. They are:

    Inherent Power
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Containment
    “Controllers are the masters at locking down and controlling their opponents. Few can escape their will. Controllers do extra damage to any target that is already Held, Immobilized, Slept, or Disoriented.”
    “An additional perk enjoyed by Controllers is a chance of getting an extra point of magnitude on the Status Effects that nearly all their primary powers cause. The word "Overpower" appears above affected enemies when this happens. This inherent is not represented by a power icon.”

    MASTERMIND
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Mastermind
    “As a Mastermind, you excel at using others to do your dirty work. Perhaps you build killer robots, command deadly Ninja, order hardened soldiers, or summon the undead to do your bidding. Whatever your choice, you have an army of minions at your beck and call. You can summon them when needed, order them to work your will, and even use your own powers to enhance them or weaken your foes. The Mastermind is a difficult class to play, often demanding constant attention to control your minions and stave off the retribution of your enemies.
    The Mastermind's power sets are:
    Primary: Summon
    Secondary: Buff”

    Primary Power Sets
    “A Mastermind's primary power sets are designed specifically for summoning. All of the Mastermind primaries have a common structure. Masterminds gain access to their first type of Henchman at level 1, their second type at level 12, and their third type at level 26. They also gain access to one Henchman upgrading power at level 6 and another at level 32.
    Unlike other pet-summoning powers, Henchman-summoning powers change as the Mastermind gains levels. Specifically, once a Mastermind hits level 6, their first Henchman power stops summoning one minion at the Mastermind's level and starts summoning two at the Mastermind's level - 1. Then, at level 18, the power changes further and instead summons three minions at the Mastermind's level - 2. The second-tier Henchman power also undergoes changes like this – it begins by summoning one equal-level minion, then changes to summoning two -1 Henchmen at level 24. This behavior depends on the Mastermind's Combat Level, not his Threat Level, so Lackeying and Malefactoring can affect it. The Mastermind Primary sets are:”

    Secondary Power Sets
    A Mastermind's secondary power sets are designed for buffing and debuffing. They are:

    Inherent Power
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inherent_Powers#Supremacy
    “A good Mastermind knows how to manage his Henchmen. The Mastermind imparts a bonus to his Henchmen's Accuracy and Damage only if he is nearby and not Phased or otherwise can only use Self Only powers. Additionally, your Henchmen within range in Defensive mode will share damage with the Mastermind, with damage being divided evenly between the Mastermind and each one of his Henchmen in range.
    Supremacy gives +25% Damage and +10% ToHit. It has a radius of 60'.”

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @UNOwen.7132

    PEACEBRINGER
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Peacebringer
    “Peacebringers, along with Warshades, are one of the two Epic Archetypes for Heroes. They are available to players who are VIP or who have purchased an unlock from the Paragon Market. All Peacebringers are of Natural origin.
    Peacebringers are formed from the fusion of an alien energy being called a Kheldian and a willing host. While Peacebringers take more damage from most attacks, they make up for this weakness with solid Hit Points, a good variety of Energy attack powers and strong defensive powers, inherent Flight, and eventually even gain access to two shape-shift forms. Peacebringers become stronger when teamed with non-Kheldian heroes, gaining bonuses to their own powers based on the archetypes of their teammates.
    Alignment: Hero
    The Peacebringer's powersets are:
    Primary: Offense
    Secondary: Defense”

    WARSHADE
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Warshade
    “Warshades, along with Peacebringers, are one of the two Epic Archetypes for Heroes. They are available to players who are VIP or who have purchased an unlock from the Paragon Market. All Warshades are of Science origin.
    Warshades are former Nictus who have left that dark path behind and reformed, joining with a willing host. While Warshades take more damage from most attacks, they make up for this weakness with solid Hit Points, a good variety of Dark Energy attack powers and strong defensive powers, inherent Teleport, and eventually even gain access to two shape-shift forms. Warshades become stronger when teamed with non-Kheldian heroes, gaining bonuses to their own powers based on the archetypes of their teammates.
    Alignment: Hero
    The Warshade's power sets are:
    Primary: Offense
    Secondary: Defense”

    ARACHNOS SOLDIER
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Arachnos_Soldier
    “Arachnos Soldiers, along with Arachnos Widows, are one of the two Epic Archetypes for Villains. They are available to players who are VIP or who have purchased an unlock from the Paragon Market. All Arachnos Soldiers are of Natural origin. While NPC versions of these archetypes are typically male, PC Arachnos Soldiers may be female. An Arachnos soldier is called Spider in the targetting window.
    Characters with Arachnos Soldier training begin their careers as Wolf Spiders. Wolf Spider characters have a strong mix of Melee and Ranged attacks and strong protective powers available via their power armor. Beginning at level 24, the player has to choose whether he will progress down the "Crab Spider" or "Bane Spider" path. Crab Spiders gain access to the "backpack" and the powerful claw/cone attacks it provides, while the Bane Spider track provides stealth and a stronger focus on melee.
    Arachnos Soldiers who go the Bane Spider route gain the ability to do automatic critical damage with any of their primary melee attacks when attacking from Hidden status. These criticals do one and two-thirds times normal damage. Bane Spiders become Hidden the same way Stalkers do, by using their secondary Cloaking Device power or primary Placate power. (However, the stealth granted by Cloaking Device is slightly less than that granted by a Stalker's Hide, and Arachnos Soldiers must also use some other source of Stealth or enemy -Perception to approach Boss and higher-rank targets reliably.)
    Alignment: Villain
    The Arachnos Soldier's power sets are:
    Primary: Soldiers
    Secondary: Gadgets”

    ARACHNOS WIDOW
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Arachnos_Widow
    “Arachnos Widows, along with Arachnos Soldiers, are one of the two Epic Archetypes for Villains. They are available to players who are VIP or who have purchased an unlock from the Paragon Market. All Arachnos Widows are of Natural origin. While all NPC Widows and Fortunata are female, PCs may be either gender. An Arachnos Widow is called Widow in the targeting window.
    Characters with Widow Training begin their careers as Blood Widows. Blood Widow characters begin with modest melee, ranged and buff skills. Beginning at level 24, they may choose to switch to the "Fortunata" path or remain on the "Widow" path and become "Night Widows." Night Widows gain considerably stronger melee capabilities, and only have modest ranged abilities, while those who go with the Fortunata path learn stronger ranged attack abilities and control abilities.
    Arachnos Widows who go the Night Widow route gain the ability to do automatic critical damage with any of their primary melee attacks when attacking from Hidden status. These criticals do one and two-thirds times normal damage. Night Widows become Hidden the same way Stalkers do, by using their primary Mask Presence or Placate power. (However, the stealth granted by Mask presence is less than that granted by a Stalker's Hide, and Night Widows must also use their Smoke Grenade power, or some other source of Stealth or enemy -Perception, to approach their target reliably.) Fortunatas are also able to perform this type of attack using the Fortunata Mask Presence power, however, lacking Placate or Smoke Grenade, they are unable to do so as often.
    Alignment: Villain
    The Arachnos Widow's power sets are:
    Primary: Training
    Secondary: Teamwork”

    Ancillary Power Pools
    “Ancillary Power Pools, also known as Epic Power Pools, become available to hero-aligned and villain-aligned characters at level 35. A character can only select one Ancillary Power Pool. Additionally, Patron Power Pools open at level 35, but require doing a Patron arc to unlock, so only characters of villain alignment can unlock these pools (though they stay unlocked for that character regardless of alignment after unlocking).
    Warshades, Peacebringers, Arachnos Soldiers and Arachnos Widows do not get access to Ancillary Power Pools.
    Unlike the regular Power Pools, these are restricted by Archetype. The powers in these pools are selected from other Archetypes, and are designed to give each Archetype access to types of abilities that they do not normally have: holds and ranged attacks for melee Archetypes, armors for ranged Archetypes, etc.
    Just like the regular Power Pools, you can choose a different APP/PPP during a respec.”

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Ancillary_Power_Pools

    OR… If you were a Villain or switched from Hero to Villain…

    Patron Power Pools
    “Patron Power Pools are the villain equivalent of Ancillary Power Pools, and attempt to balance the Archetypes' builds. Unlike Ancillary Powers, Patron Powers must be earned by completing a story arc that becomes available for a Villain at Level 35. The Villain can see Arbiter Rein, who then outlines the gravity of the situation in choosing an Arachnos Patron: Black Scorpion, Captain Mako, Ghost Widow, and Scirocco. Once selected, the story arc leads the Villain on a quest to become a true disciple of the Patron, with an Accolade rewarded at the end and all four Patron Power Pools being unlocked within the level selection screen.
    The powersets also have the same name for each patron, regardless of Archetype. There are only four Patron Powersets to choose from with any Archetype, however the powers within them are complementary to the Villain's Archetype, similar to Ancillary Power Pools.
    You must select a Patron before you can take any Patron Power Pools powers. Also note that it is possible to play through City of Villains without choosing a Patron Power Pool. The power-enabled levels (35, 41, and 44) will still present the available legal choices from your primary and secondary sets, general Power Pools, as well as the Ancillary Power Pools (excluding Arachnos Soldiers and Arachnos Widows) from City of Heroes (which can be chosen without having to become a hero).”

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Patron_Power_Pools

    PLUS

    Common Skill Resource used for ALL classes…
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Endurance
    “Endurance is one of the key characteristics used in the CoX universe. All player characters and opponents have Endurance.
    Endurance represents the amount of energy a character has to conduct actions. It slowly recovers over time but is diminished by using powers. It may also be drained by enemies using certain powers, indicated by -Endurance or -End in the power's effects.
    All player characters start with a maximum of 100 Endurance. Through set bonuses, Temporary Powers and Accolades, this maximum can be increased, as can the ongoing recovery rate of endurance. A character can never have more than their maximum endurance - any boost (either over time or instant) that would put them over their maximum is capped to their maximum, and the rest is wasted.”

    Common Skill Pools available to ALL classes…
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Power_Pools
    “Power Pools are supplemental power sets available to all archetypes, beyond the primary and secondary power sets selected during character creation. A character may select powers from up to four power pools per build. Unlike primary and secondary archetype power sets, a character may change their power pools during a respec. Each power pool has either four or five powers, which are unlocked at various levels, as described below.
    Pool powers aren't as effective as their cousins in primary and secondary power sets. However, they can be used to cover a weakness in your power sets (Aid Self for a Blaster), provide support abilities to your teammates (Maneuvers for a Defender), or have a surprising twist or contradiction on your Archetype and power sets (Provoke for a Mastermind). The Travel Powers also come from the power pools. Utilizing power pools may require skipping one or more powers in the primary or secondary power sets of the character.”

    Common skill pools available to earn on ALL classes at max level…
    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Incarnate_System
    “The Incarnate System is the name of the end game content, first unveiled in Issue 19: Alpha Strike.
    The system features new content, abilities, and rewards for level 50 characters. As player characters work through the content, they will be given rewards to unlock special Incarnate slots and special salvage to craft boosts and powers that will increase the capabilities of Level 50 characters. In turn, these characters will need the added abilities in order to work through subsequent and more difficult content.”

    Common “potions” available to ALL classes…

    https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Inspirations
    “Inspirations are single-use temporary boosts. There are several different inspiration types that provide various ability increases. Three inspirations of the same type can be combined into one inspiration of different type.”

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • Jugglemonkey.8741Jugglemonkey.8741 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing.

    Critical Kit, Deadeye.
    “If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.” - John Steinbeck

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing.

    I don't know why anyone would suggest quickness doing something to initiative regen (it doesn't in its current form).

    Both Alacrity, and Chilled's cooldown-effect can be oversights. This isn't a mutually exclusive thing even if thief receives the least from both effects. Keep in mind from inception Thief was designed in a time Alacrity wasn't even a concept (it came with Chrono in HoT) while chilled was there in the beginning. Which is why I stated it as an oversight. Thank you finding another one in Alacrity. Furthermore, I don't even like Alacrity because it increases spam in general. The OP already doesn't like the "spam" in thief weapon skills, which I'm happy to say I wouldn't want to increase spam either. Luckily, I don't have to worry about Thieve's Alacrity output either for me to care about the hypothetical scenario their initiative regen benefited.

    D:

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing.

    Keep in mind from inception Thief was designed in a time Alacrity wasn't even a concept (it came with Chrono in HoT) while chilled was there in the beginning.

    Ok, everyone's keeping this in mind. How is this important here?

    Which is why I stated it as an oversight. Thank you finding another one in Alacrity.

    What kind of logic is this? How do you go from "chilled was there in the beginning" to "which is why I stated it was oversight"? Even moreso when you suggest the opposite makes sense too when it comes to alacrity. I can't connect the dots here.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    it probably wont improve.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing.

    Keep in mind from inception Thief was designed in a time Alacrity wasn't even a concept (it came with Chrono in HoT) while chilled was there in the beginning.

    Ok, everyone's keeping this in mind. How is this important here?

    Because when they were designing thief's initiative resource the condition chilled existed with its cooldown debuff. Alacrity wasn't present until HoT, so it couldn't have been possible to consider Alacrity in the beginning. I don't really see how that's hard to understand. Clearly they chose to stay the course and ignore cooldown related things when it came to thieve's initiative based skills with the inclusion of Alacrity.

    Which is why I stated it as an oversight. Thank you finding another one in Alacrity.

    What kind of logic is this? How do you go from "chilled was there in the beginning" to "which is why I stated it was oversight"? Even moreso when you suggest the opposite makes sense too when it comes to alacrity. I can't connect the dots here.

    I'm starting to think this is turning into a semantics issue only to derail the topic. Forget the term oversight. I also never said quickness should affect quickness, so we can forget that boon too. What is agreed is that both Alacrity, and Chilled cooldown debuff affect Thief's initiative the least. My opinion is I don't like boons/conditions affecting a classes unequally unless the game revolved around it more heavily (GW2 doesn't). I don't care if thief can clear chilled (if they spec for it which isn't hard) nor do I care that they lack Alacrity application anyway (which is hard to spec for). The OP wants to upend the Thief's initiative system with the goal to reduce it's perceived spam (and a lot of other game "balance"). If spam was truly the problem with thief then the easiest solution is to raise initiative costs on select skills, or a function change like turning a duel attack into two skills. Easiest doesn't necessarily mean best of course.

    D:

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing.

    Keep in mind from inception Thief was designed in a time Alacrity wasn't even a concept (it came with Chrono in HoT) while chilled was there in the beginning.

    Ok, everyone's keeping this in mind. How is this important here?

    Because when they were designing thief's initiative resource the condition chilled existed with its cooldown debuff. Alacrity wasn't present until HoT, so it couldn't have been possible to consider Alacrity in the beginning. I don't really see how that's hard to understand. Clearly they chose to stay the course and ignore cooldown related things when it came to thieve's initiative based skills with the inclusion of Alacrity.

    It's hard to understand because you seemed to be claiming something along the lines of "chilled could be an oversight because it existed since the beginning" while at the same time claiming "alacrity could be an oversight because it didn't exist since the beginning". Also 2 things being designed at the similar time in no way implies an oversight, so that chilling conclusion is "a bit" random in the first place. Hence me saying I can't connect the dots, because I still don't see the line between that statement and the conclusion.
    If it was an oversight -which I doubt- they could easly fix it at the very least when they introduced the alacrity. You seem to understand that fact based on what you're saying now (as opposed to "Both Alacrity, and Chilled's cooldown-effect can be oversights" from previous post), so I'm still not sure why you'd try to claim chill is/was an oversight.
    Overally I don't understand the point you're trying to make here and my confusion comes exactly from you contradicting yourself even after you made your weirdly disconnected conclusions.

    Which is why I stated it as an oversight. Thank you finding another one in Alacrity.

    What kind of logic is this? How do you go from "chilled was there in the beginning" to "which is why I stated it was oversight"? Even moreso when you suggest the opposite makes sense too when it comes to alacrity. I can't connect the dots here.

    I'm starting to think this is turning into a semantics issue only to derail the topic. Forget the term oversight. I also never said quickness should affect quickness, so we can forget that boon too.

    You're the one that started talking about chill, not sure how it's suddenly me who's derailing the discussion. And your disconnected conclusions making no sense doesn't have anything to do with semantics. It's just that your argument made no sense to the point you started contradicting yourself soon after.
    And I don't know what you mean about quickness affecting quickness. Someone wrote "quickness" instead of "alacrity", I think now it's clear for everyone involved and I never even mentioned that in the first place.

    What is agreed is that both Alacrity, and Chilled cooldown debuff affect Thief's initiative the least. My opinion is I don't like boons/conditions affecting a classes unequally unless the game revolved around it more heavily (GW2 doesn't). I don't care if thief can clear chilled (if they spec for it which isn't hard) nor do I care that they lack Alacrity application anyway (which is hard to spec for). The OP wants to upend the Thief's initiative system with the goal to reduce it's perceived spam (and a lot of other game "balance"). If spam was truly the problem with thief then the easiest solution is to raise initiative costs on select skills, or a function change like turning a duel attack into two skills. Easiest doesn't necessarily mean best of course.

    Yes, they affect it the least, they're pretty much the opposite of each other and it's fine to have a mechanic that's unaffected by both. You don't like it and you're free to do so, there's not much to argue about here, because you either like something or you don't. If "I don't like it" is all you want to say here, then there's nothing to talk about. It's just that your claim that about chill and alacrity being an oversight didn't make much sense.

    D:

    Does this emote has any purpose in your posts?

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @JugglemonkeySoHeCanStopBeingSpammed.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @JugglemonkeySoHeCanStopBeingSpammed.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing.

    Keep in mind from inception Thief was designed in a time Alacrity wasn't even a concept (it came with Chrono in HoT) while chilled was there in the beginning.

    Ok, everyone's keeping this in mind. How is this important here?

    Because when they were designing thief's initiative resource the condition chilled existed with its cooldown debuff. Alacrity wasn't present until HoT, so it couldn't have been possible to consider Alacrity in the beginning. I don't really see how that's hard to understand. Clearly they chose to stay the course and ignore cooldown related things when it came to thieve's initiative based skills with the inclusion of Alacrity.

    It's hard to understand because you seemed to be claiming something along the lines of "chilled could be an oversight because it existed since the beginning" while at the same time claiming "alacrity could be an oversight because it didn't exist since the beginning". Also 2 things being designed at the similar time in no way implies an oversight, so that chilling conclusion is "a bit" random in the first place. Hence me saying I can't connect the dots, because I still don't see the line between that statement and the conclusion.
    If it was an oversight -which I doubt- they could easly fix it at the very least when they introduced the alacrity. You seem to understand that fact based on what you're saying now (as opposed to "Both Alacrity, and Chilled's cooldown-effect can be oversights" from previous post), so I'm still not sure why you'd try to claim chill is/was an oversight.
    Overally I don't understand the point you're trying to make here and my confusion comes exactly from you contradicting yourself even after you made your weirdly disconnected conclusions.

    No. This is not my intention at all. I didn't view chill in a vacuum completely disconnected from everything else with only it's mere existence in the beginning as the sole argument. That is too much simplification. I viewed it as connected to thief's design philosophy of initiative. If they were designed in parallel, then it was reasonable for me to assume ANET considered how the class would interact with the conditions present (chill in this case). If they didn't care that half the effect of chill played no role on initiative then technically no. They could have chose to ignore it in their own design, and thus it's not an "oversight" since I can't read minds. It was the inconsistency that made me perceive it as an "oversight." "It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted." - Me

    Which is why I stated it as an oversight. Thank you finding another one in Alacrity.

    What kind of logic is this? How do you go from "chilled was there in the beginning" to "which is why I stated it was oversight"? Even moreso when you suggest the opposite makes sense too when it comes to alacrity. I can't connect the dots here.

    I'm starting to think this is turning into a semantics issue only to derail the topic. Forget the term oversight. I also never said quickness should affect quickness, so we can forget that boon too.

    Which is why I bring up semantics. It was more accurate to give my opinion below instead of sticking to "it's an oversight." While true I used "stated" like "I said," but my perception of "Oversight" is not factual. Still can't read ANET's mind. "Oversight" was probably hyperbolic that only aided in your confusion.

    You're the one that started talking about chill, not sure how it's suddenly me who's derailing the discussion. And your disconnected conclusions making no sense doesn't have anything to do with semantics. It's just that your argument made no sense to the point you started contradicting yourself soon after.
    And I don't know what you mean about quickness affecting quickness. Someone wrote "quickness" instead of "alacrity", I think now it's clear for everyone involved and I never even mentioned that in the first place.

    Yes, I did start with chill. OP doesn't like spam. Slow and Chill are two counter plays to reduce "spam." I didn't fully support OP's way of dealing with balance, but I also don't like spam. That someone (Juggles) didn't throw out quickness so I had to reiterate, but they agreed with alacrity being another issue. Unless either or has a different interpretation. "Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing." - Juggle

    What is agreed is that both Alacrity, and Chilled cooldown debuff affect Thief's initiative the least. My opinion is I don't like boons/conditions affecting a classes unequally unless the game revolved around it more heavily (GW2 doesn't). I don't care if thief can clear chilled (if they spec for it which isn't hard) nor do I care that they lack Alacrity application anyway (which is hard to spec for). The OP wants to upend the Thief's initiative system with the goal to reduce it's perceived spam (and a lot of other game "balance"). If spam was truly the problem with thief then the easiest solution is to raise initiative costs on select skills, or a function change like turning a duel attack into two skills. Easiest doesn't necessarily mean best of course.

    Yes, they affect it the least, they're pretty much the opposite of each other and it's fine to have a mechanic that's unaffected by both. You don't like it and you're free to do so, there's not much to argue about here, because you either like something or you don't. If "I don't like it" is all you want to say here, then there's nothing to talk about. It's just that your claim that about chill and alacrity being an oversight didn't make much sense.

    Opposite? Technically Alacrity would need a movement speed increase a well. Not really for buffing Alacrity with speed. Regardless of nitpicking, ANET is allowed to do whatever they feel fit, just as you are also allowed to like/dislike it. The forums are place to share opinions, and many dislike/like ANET's balance yet they come to "discuss" it here anyway. If you feel me calling it an oversight is hyperbolic that's fine too.

    Since you were confused I will give a shot by shot remake:
    1. OP wants to change up Anet's balance (resource mechanics in this case).
    2. I wasn't fully on board with OP, but I did say there was a small inconsistency in chill affecting cooldowns/resources for some classes .
    3. OP felt thief was particularly spammy, so I said thief (although some rev utility stuff doesn't have a "cooldown" either, but they aren't necessarily effective if "spammed")
    4. Alacrity was also brought up as a inconsistency in regards to cooldowns on classes that might not have them.
    5. I stated thief was created in an environment where Chilled already existed, but Alacrity did not thus leaning me towards mentioning Chilled first. This mention didn't exclude the existence of Alacrity being in a similar vein.
    6. Confusion was created because I presumed everyone would know the long thought process that also required knowledge of the game from the beginning..
    7. I need to remember that people can't read minds, and might require more than a Twitter Post's length.
    8. Still not on board with upending a system, but I guess giving my opinion on Chilled is too much. Want to know what I think of Weakness?

    D:

    Does this emote has any purpose in your posts?

    Yes.

    D:

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @JugglemonkeySoHeCanStopBeingSpammed.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @JugglemonkeySoHeCanStopBeingSpammed.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing.

    Keep in mind from inception Thief was designed in a time Alacrity wasn't even a concept (it came with Chrono in HoT) while chilled was there in the beginning.

    Ok, everyone's keeping this in mind. How is this important here?

    Because when they were designing thief's initiative resource the condition chilled existed with its cooldown debuff. Alacrity wasn't present until HoT, so it couldn't have been possible to consider Alacrity in the beginning. I don't really see how that's hard to understand. Clearly they chose to stay the course and ignore cooldown related things when it came to thieve's initiative based skills with the inclusion of Alacrity.

    It's hard to understand because you seemed to be claiming something along the lines of "chilled could be an oversight because it existed since the beginning" while at the same time claiming "alacrity could be an oversight because it didn't exist since the beginning". Also 2 things being designed at the similar time in no way implies an oversight, so that chilling conclusion is "a bit" random in the first place. Hence me saying I can't connect the dots, because I still don't see the line between that statement and the conclusion.
    If it was an oversight -which I doubt- they could easly fix it at the very least when they introduced the alacrity. You seem to understand that fact based on what you're saying now (as opposed to "Both Alacrity, and Chilled's cooldown-effect can be oversights" from previous post), so I'm still not sure why you'd try to claim chill is/was an oversight.
    Overally I don't understand the point you're trying to make here and my confusion comes exactly from you contradicting yourself even after you made your weirdly disconnected conclusions.

    No. This is not my intention at all. I didn't view chill in a vacuum completely disconnected from everything else with only it's mere existence in the beginning as the sole argument. That is too much simplification. I viewed it as connected to thief's design philosophy of initiative. If they were designed in parallel, then it was reasonable for me to assume ANET considered how the class would interact with the conditions present (chill in this case). If they didn't care that half the effect of chill played no role on initiative then technically no. They could have chose to ignore it in their own design, and thus it's not an "oversight" since I can't read minds. It was the inconsistency that made me perceive it as an "oversight." "It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted." - Me

    I didn't say anything about vacuum, at which point I simplified anything here? Unless you mean you're the one that simplified your own thoughts here, at which point I'm not sure why you were so surprised about someone else misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Because what you actually said didn't make much sense.
    And there was/is no inconsistency about how it works -actually it IS more consistent this way.

    Which is why I stated it as an oversight. Thank you finding another one in Alacrity.

    What kind of logic is this? How do you go from "chilled was there in the beginning" to "which is why I stated it was oversight"? Even moreso when you suggest the opposite makes sense too when it comes to alacrity. I can't connect the dots here.

    I'm starting to think this is turning into a semantics issue only to derail the topic. Forget the term oversight. I also never said quickness should affect quickness, so we can forget that boon too.

    Which is why I bring up semantics. It was more accurate to give my opinion below instead of sticking to "it's an oversight." While true I used "stated" like "I said," but my perception of "Oversight" is not factual. Still can't read ANET's mind. "Oversight" was probably hyperbolic that only aided in your confusion.

    Ok, makes sense. But then if you don't explain exactly what you think then don't act surprised about someone taking your simplification and saying it doesn't make much sense when it doesn't. :x

    What is agreed is that both Alacrity, and Chilled cooldown debuff affect Thief's initiative the least. My opinion is I don't like boons/conditions affecting a classes unequally unless the game revolved around it more heavily (GW2 doesn't). I don't care if thief can clear chilled (if they spec for it which isn't hard) nor do I care that they lack Alacrity application anyway (which is hard to spec for). The OP wants to upend the Thief's initiative system with the goal to reduce it's perceived spam (and a lot of other game "balance"). If spam was truly the problem with thief then the easiest solution is to raise initiative costs on select skills, or a function change like turning a duel attack into two skills. Easiest doesn't necessarily mean best of course.

    Yes, they affect it the least, they're pretty much the opposite of each other and it's fine to have a mechanic that's unaffected by both. You don't like it and you're free to do so, there's not much to argue about here, because you either like something or you don't. If "I don't like it" is all you want to say here, then there's nothing to talk about. It's just that your claim that about chill and alacrity being an oversight didn't make much sense.

    Opposite? Technically Alacrity would need a movement speed increase a well. Not really for buffing Alacrity with speed.

    Yup, "PRETTY MUCH" opposite in the context we're talking about in addition to the other part of chill actually affecting thief, so not sure why we'd talk about the slow here -it's irrelevant and works the same as for other classes. If alacrity gave the speed to be LITERALLY the opposite of chill, thief would be affected by it as well, so it would still be irrelevant.
    Bottom line, I know what they do, so no worries here.

    Regardless of nitpicking, ANET is allowed to do whatever they feel fit, just as you are also allowed to like/dislike it. The forums are place to share opinions, and many dislike/like ANET's balance yet they come to "discuss" it here anyway. If you feel me calling it an oversight is hyperbolic that's fine too.

    Sure, didn't I literally say that if you just came to say that "you dislike it", then there's not much to talk about here? I'm not trying to change your opinion, what I said was that your simplified/hyperbolic statement that tried to serve as a justification didn't make much sense -because it didn't. Still free to dislike the mechanic.

    Since you were confused I will give a shot by shot remake:
    1. OP wants to change up Anet's balance (resource mechanics in this case).
    2. I wasn't fully on board with OP, but I did say there was a small inconsistency in chill affecting cooldowns/resources for some classes .
    3. OP felt thief was particularly spammy, so I said thief (although some rev utility stuff doesn't have a "cooldown" either, but they aren't necessarily effective if "spammed")
    4. Alacrity was also brought up as a inconsistency in regards to cooldowns on classes that might not have them.
    5. I stated thief was created in an environment where Chilled already existed, but Alacrity did not thus leaning me towards mentioning Chilled first. This mention didn't exclude the existence of Alacrity being in a similar vein.
    6. Confusion was created because I presumed everyone would know the long thought process that also required knowledge of the game from the beginning..
    7. I need to remember that people can't read minds, and might require more than a Twitter Post's length.
    8. Still not on board with upending a system, but I guess giving my opinion on Chilled is too much. Want to know what I think of Weakness?

    Thanks for the recap clearing up previous posts, remembering about people not reading minds seems to be important :p aaaaaand I still think that a skill that slows down cd recharge time not affecting skills without said cooldown is more consistent than inconsistent, but I guess we'll need to agree to disagree on that one, w/e.

    D:

    Does this emote has any purpose in your posts?

    Yes.

    D:

    What purpose exactly is it? :blush:

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 17, 2019

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @JugglemonkeySoHeCanStopBeingSpammed.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @JugglemonkeySoHeCanStopBeingSpammed.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing.

    Keep in mind from inception Thief was designed in a time Alacrity wasn't even a concept (it came with Chrono in HoT) while chilled was there in the beginning.

    Ok, everyone's keeping this in mind. How is this important here?

    Because when they were designing thief's initiative resource the condition chilled existed with its cooldown debuff. Alacrity wasn't present until HoT, so it couldn't have been possible to consider Alacrity in the beginning. I don't really see how that's hard to understand. Clearly they chose to stay the course and ignore cooldown related things when it came to thieve's initiative based skills with the inclusion of Alacrity.

    It's hard to understand because you seemed to be claiming something along the lines of "chilled could be an oversight because it existed since the beginning" while at the same time claiming "alacrity could be an oversight because it didn't exist since the beginning". Also 2 things being designed at the similar time in no way implies an oversight, so that chilling conclusion is "a bit" random in the first place. Hence me saying I can't connect the dots, because I still don't see the line between that statement and the conclusion.
    If it was an oversight -which I doubt- they could easly fix it at the very least when they introduced the alacrity. You seem to understand that fact based on what you're saying now (as opposed to "Both Alacrity, and Chilled's cooldown-effect can be oversights" from previous post), so I'm still not sure why you'd try to claim chill is/was an oversight.
    Overally I don't understand the point you're trying to make here and my confusion comes exactly from you contradicting yourself even after you made your weirdly disconnected conclusions.

    No. This is not my intention at all. I didn't view chill in a vacuum completely disconnected from everything else with only it's mere existence in the beginning as the sole argument. That is too much simplification. I viewed it as connected to thief's design philosophy of initiative [skills]. If they were designed in parallel, then it was reasonable for me to assume ANET considered how the class would interact with the conditions present (chill in this case). If they didn't care that half the effect of chill played no role on initiative [skills] then technically no. They could have chose to ignore it in their own design, and thus it's not an "oversight" since I can't read minds. It was the inconsistency that made me perceive it as an "oversight." "It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted." - Me

    I didn't say anything about vacuum, at which point I simplified anything here? Unless you mean you're the one that simplified your own thoughts here, at which point I'm not sure why you were so surprised about someone else misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Because what you actually said didn't make much sense.
    And there was/is no inconsistency about how it works -actually it IS more consistent this way.

    Should have said initiative skills this whole time, and not just the word initiative. RIP.

    Which is why I stated it as an oversight. Thank you finding another one in Alacrity.

    What kind of logic is this? How do you go from "chilled was there in the beginning" to "which is why I stated it was oversight"? Even moreso when you suggest the opposite makes sense too when it comes to alacrity. I can't connect the dots here.

    I'm starting to think this is turning into a semantics issue only to derail the topic. Forget the term oversight. I also never said quickness should affect quickness, so we can forget that boon too.

    Which is why I bring up semantics. It was more accurate to give my opinion below instead of sticking to "it's an oversight." While true I used "stated" like "I said," but my perception of "Oversight" is not factual. Still can't read ANET's mind. "Oversight" was probably hyperbolic that only aided in your confusion.

    Ok, makes sense. But then if you don't explain exactly what you think then don't act surprised about someone taking your simplification and saying it doesn't make much sense when it doesn't. :x

    What is agreed is that both Alacrity, and Chilled cooldown debuff affect Thief's initiative the least. My opinion is I don't like boons/conditions affecting a classes unequally unless the game revolved around it more heavily (GW2 doesn't). I don't care if thief can clear chilled (if they spec for it which isn't hard) nor do I care that they lack Alacrity application anyway (which is hard to spec for). The OP wants to upend the Thief's initiative system with the goal to reduce it's perceived spam (and a lot of other game "balance"). If spam was truly the problem with thief then the easiest solution is to raise initiative costs on select skills, or a function change like turning a duel attack into two skills. Easiest doesn't necessarily mean best of course.

    Yes, they affect it the least, they're pretty much the opposite of each other and it's fine to have a mechanic that's unaffected by both. You don't like it and you're free to do so, there's not much to argue about here, because you either like something or you don't. If "I don't like it" is all you want to say here, then there's nothing to talk about. It's just that your claim that about chill and alacrity being an oversight didn't make much sense.

    Opposite? Technically Alacrity would need a movement speed increase a well. Not really for buffing Alacrity with speed.

    Yup, "PRETTY MUCH" opposite in the context we're talking about in addition to the other part of chill actually affecting thief, so not sure why we'd talk about the slow here -it's irrelevant and works the same as for other classes. If alacrity gave the speed to be LITERALLY the opposite of chill, thief would be affected by it as well, so it would still be irrelevant.
    Bottom line, I know what they do, so no worries here.

    Regardless of nitpicking, ANET is allowed to do whatever they feel fit, just as you are also allowed to like/dislike it. The forums are place to share opinions, and many dislike/like ANET's balance yet they come to "discuss" it here anyway. If you feel me calling it an oversight is hyperbolic that's fine too.

    Sure, didn't I literally say that if you just came to say that "you dislike it", then there's not much to talk about here? I'm not trying to change your opinion, what I said was that your simplified/hyperbolic statement that tried to serve as a justification didn't make much sense -because it didn't. Still free to dislike the mechanic.

    I should have made a longer post that was riddled with sarcasm and snark as my first post hoping it'd get the attention of the OP so I could then get in a long thread war with them simply to say, "I dislike their ideas, and those ideas wouldn't work." Live by your example, no?

    Since you were confused I will give a shot by shot remake:
    1. OP wants to change up Anet's balance (resource mechanics in this case).
    2. I wasn't fully on board with OP, but I did say there was a small inconsistency in chill affecting cooldowns/resources for some classes .
    3. OP felt thief was particularly spammy, so I said thief (although some rev utility stuff doesn't have a "cooldown" either, but they aren't necessarily effective if "spammed")
    4. Alacrity was also brought up as a inconsistency in regards to cooldowns on classes that might not have them.
    5. I stated thief was created in an environment where Chilled already existed, but Alacrity did not thus leaning me towards mentioning Chilled first. This mention didn't exclude the existence of Alacrity being in a similar vein.
    6. Confusion was created because I presumed everyone would know the long thought process that also required knowledge of the game from the beginning..
    7. I need to remember that people can't read minds, and might require more than a Twitter Post's length.
    8. Still not on board with upending a system, but I guess giving my opinion on Chilled is too much. Want to know what I think of Weakness?

    Thanks for the recap clearing up previous posts, remembering about people not reading minds seems to be important :p aaaaaand I still think that a skill that slows down cd recharge time not affecting skills without said cooldown is more consistent than inconsistent, but I guess we'll need to agree to disagree on that one, w/e.

    Yes, the math is correct. A skill without cooldown wouldn't be affected by chilled/alacrity. Imagine if our 1 spam farm was hindered? Oh dear oh my the posts we'd see here. Obviously, not all skills without "cooldown" are auto attack skills. Rather, it's the idea that half of the thieves kit (the weapon skills) becomes immune because their "cooldown" (metaphorically speaking) is in their initiative, and not the standard per ability cooldown. A pew pew soulbeast weapon set is affected in contrast. I don't want to do what the OP wishes by scrapping the mechanical idea of mana, I mean initiative. ANET has already decided on this by keeping it so far. I doubt my dislike is going to change that. Furthermore, my original post was mostly about combo fields and the chill was the last thought. I even left open what that change to chill could be with the, "in some way." Others want things to stay the same, of course. Changing it's description to fit the special use cases of no-cooldown abilities would be irritating and inconsistent.

    I'm guessing you wanted an example for these cooldown related boon/condis. There are three paths that can be taken, but theory crafting specifics will be beyond this topic (oh how far we have driven off course).:

    1. Do Nothing. The most practical thing ANET can do, and requires no money that they probably don't have to waste on addressing this. Remember they did have to lay people off...
    2. Remove cooldown related boon/condi effects. The most dramatic thing, and risky because Alacrity is a feature for Chronos/Dat one Rev Build, and would make Chill another kitten snare that would need to be altered. Hindsight is 20/20 after seeing that Alacrity is such a spam inducing mess. To think they even tried nerfing the kitten out of mesmer! Shame.
    3. Alter functionality of Chilled and/or Alacrity. Similar results on changing Alacrity if people relied on its cooldown reducing benefits.

    Because I live in reality. I would choose option 1 given the practical circumstances like money, and the age of the game. Making a fiddly change wouldn't guarantee increased profit either. Pity. At best it'd need to be paired with a meaningful content update.

    To conclude. I don't like chilled, but now I really-really-really don't like Alacrity. I somewhat support anyone's effort on reducing spam, but I don't think re-classing will be possible any time Soon™. Thanks team.

    D:

    Does this emote has any purpose in your posts?

    Yes.

    D:

    What purpose exactly is it? :blush:

    To make the pretty people blush. What is more attractive than a bad guy? Because I'm bad at everything bebe.

    D:

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 18, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

    So what we know... You edited out where you agreed about the issue with Necro. There are indeed examples of games that have common core designs. We learned that recharge timers are not “resources. And we also learned that there are games that use a common class foundation, but offer way more unique play styles, more unique roles and more unique skills than in GW2.

    And you can try to deny those above facts with misinformation, spin doctoring and editing, but it won’t make what I brought up as incorrect... Only makes you look like you are here to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t have a good grasp of things.

  • Straegen.2938Straegen.2938 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 18, 2019

    Seeking balance is what the Jedi did in Star Wars and we can see how that turned out.

    Until GW2 elminates all classes/builds there will never be class balance since some class/build will always be meta over others just like virtually every other MMO. I would argue GW2 is actually one of the better class balanced MMOs with competitive scene out there. There isn't a single class that someone can point to that is under-served in WvW right now. Every class is "viable" for one role or another.

    What would help is more meta diversity. Firebrands and Scourges dominate large scale and that needs to evolve with some gentle nerfs and gentle buffs to other zerg classes. WvW is missing composition variety which eliminates a lot of the comp theory crafting. WvW needs to be more rock/paper/scissors in the comp in large scale.

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

    So what we know... You edited out where you agreed about the issue with Necro. There are indeed examples of games that have common core designs. We learned that recharge timers are not “resources. And we also learned that there are games that use a common class foundation, but offer way more unique play styles, more unique roles and more unique skills than in GW2.

    And you can try to deny those above facts with misinformation, spin doctoring and editing, but it won’t make what I brought up as incorrect... Only makes you look like you are here to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t have a good grasp of things.

    Except as you might be able to tell by the fact have that little message saying "edited X:XX AM/PM", I never edited that out, because I never even said it. There are games that have one shared common resource with no secondary resource to distinguish them, but they are in the vast minority, and generally not example of great design. Cooldowns are resources. Ironically theyre actually more relevant resources than most resources, given that in just about every game that has mana, its merely a formality youre not going to run out of in any normal gameplay scenario. And no, thats just what you want to believe, but fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2.

    I can deny those "facts" by pointing out theyre not facts in the first place. Theyre, at best, your opinion. And it seems that your opinion is not shared by many people. Not here, not in other games, not even in the game industry as a whole. The biggest, most popular and even the most well designed games all follow a paradigm similiar to, if not identical to GW2s. Whereas the only example you gave was a niche game that eventually failed.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 18, 2019

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

    So what we know... You edited out where you agreed about the issue with Necro. There are indeed examples of games that have common core designs. We learned that recharge timers are not “resources. And we also learned that there are games that use a common class foundation, but offer way more unique play styles, more unique roles and more unique skills than in GW2.

    And you can try to deny those above facts with misinformation, spin doctoring and editing, but it won’t make what I brought up as incorrect... Only makes you look like you are here to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t have a good grasp of things.

    Except as you might be able to tell by the fact have that little message saying "edited X:XX AM/PM", I never edited that out, because I never even said it. There are games that have one shared common resource with no secondary resource to distinguish them, but they are in the vast minority, and generally not example of great design. Cooldowns are resources. Ironically theyre actually more relevant resources than most resources, given that in just about every game that has mana, its merely a formality youre not going to run out of in any normal gameplay scenario. And no, thats just what you want to believe, but fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2.

    I can deny those "facts" by pointing out theyre not facts in the first place. Theyre, at best, your opinion. And it seems that your opinion is not shared by many people. Not here, not in other games, not even in the game industry as a whole. The biggest, most popular and even the most well designed games all follow a paradigm similiar to, if not identical to GW2s. Whereas the only example you gave was a niche game that eventually failed.

    Lying about a comment you made, and edited out, that acknowledged the issues isn't helping you here...

    Learn the differences before we continue...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Recharge

    "Recharge , alternatively cooldown or CD, is the interval of time (in seconds) after a skill or ability has been used before it can be used again."

    Main wording... "interval of time"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Energy

    "Energy functions similarly to the thief's initiative mechanic, although many of the revenant's skills still have a recharge time. Most skills (except auto-attacks) have an energy cost, ranging from 4 to 50. While out of combat, energy cannot go over 50%, and any energy over 50% is lost immediately upon leaving combat. While in combat, energy is able to drop to 0% and increase to 100%.

    Energy is replenished over time as indicated by the arrows to the left and right of the energy indicator. Each arrow indicates how many percentage units are gained or lost per second. When swapping to a new legend, the energy pool is instantly reset to 50%. As this is the only way to regain energy other than natural replenishment (or by using Ancient Echo), players will often swap legends when they have depleted their energy."

    Main wording "an energy cost".

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Initiative
    "Initiative is a skill cost mechanic unique to the thief profession. It replaces recharge on the thief's weapon skills with a pool of twelve points which are spent when the skills are used and gradually returns over time. Using initiative the thief is able to tactically attack an opponent with their own chains and bursts of damage until they run out of the resource."

    Main wording... "a skill cost" and " resource"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Life_force

    "Life force is the necromancer's resource that fuels Death Shroud and Reaper's Shroud. Life force is gained when players or NPCs die nearby (providing 10% life force per death, approximately within a range of 1,200 units) and through certain skills.[1] Death Shroud depletes life force and ends when it reaches zero."

    Main wording... "resource that fuels"

    Again, to be helpful... Recharge is an "interval of time" and... Resources are "an energy cost", "a skill cost" and "resource that fuels".

    And for this... "fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2."... Nice of you to acknowledge that a game (launched in 2004) with a common resource had greater diversity than GW2 after saying "you lose a lot of diversity and design space". But again, you don't know what you are talking about here... " The playstyles were very same-y"... As if a stalker and tanker playstyles were "same-y", or a mastermind and controller were "same-y" or a defender and a dominator were "same-y"... yeah...

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Sobx.1758 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @JugglemonkeySoHeCanStopBeingSpammed.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @JugglemonkeySoHeCanStopBeingSpammed.8741 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:
    I will say that chill needs to affect thieve's initiative skills in some way. It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted by that conditional effect of recharge-time slowing. Unless I'm not noticing something...

    D:

    Just addressing this point, you're correct in that chill affects thieves the least because of initiative, but by the same token quickness also affects thieves the least because it does not affect initiative gain. If you want chill to affect initiative gain negatively there's no good reason to not have quickness affect it positively, and given how easy it is to cleanse chill on thief I'm pretty sure you'll dislike that scenario more than the current one.

    You mean alacrity?

    D:

    Either or. My point is that maybe chill, quickness and alacrity not affecting ini regen is actually a good thing.

    Keep in mind from inception Thief was designed in a time Alacrity wasn't even a concept (it came with Chrono in HoT) while chilled was there in the beginning.

    Ok, everyone's keeping this in mind. How is this important here?

    Because when they were designing thief's initiative resource the condition chilled existed with its cooldown debuff. Alacrity wasn't present until HoT, so it couldn't have been possible to consider Alacrity in the beginning. I don't really see how that's hard to understand. Clearly they chose to stay the course and ignore cooldown related things when it came to thieve's initiative based skills with the inclusion of Alacrity.

    It's hard to understand because you seemed to be claiming something along the lines of "chilled could be an oversight because it existed since the beginning" while at the same time claiming "alacrity could be an oversight because it didn't exist since the beginning". Also 2 things being designed at the similar time in no way implies an oversight, so that chilling conclusion is "a bit" random in the first place. Hence me saying I can't connect the dots, because I still don't see the line between that statement and the conclusion.
    If it was an oversight -which I doubt- they could easly fix it at the very least when they introduced the alacrity. You seem to understand that fact based on what you're saying now (as opposed to "Both Alacrity, and Chilled's cooldown-effect can be oversights" from previous post), so I'm still not sure why you'd try to claim chill is/was an oversight.
    Overally I don't understand the point you're trying to make here and my confusion comes exactly from you contradicting yourself even after you made your weirdly disconnected conclusions.

    No. This is not my intention at all. I didn't view chill in a vacuum completely disconnected from everything else with only it's mere existence in the beginning as the sole argument. That is too much simplification. I viewed it as connected to thief's design philosophy of initiative [skills]. If they were designed in parallel, then it was reasonable for me to assume ANET considered how the class would interact with the conditions present (chill in this case). If they didn't care that half the effect of chill played no role on initiative [skills] then technically no. They could have chose to ignore it in their own design, and thus it's not an "oversight" since I can't read minds. It was the inconsistency that made me perceive it as an "oversight." "It seems an oversight that they're the least impacted." - Me

    I didn't say anything about vacuum, at which point I simplified anything here? Unless you mean you're the one that simplified your own thoughts here, at which point I'm not sure why you were so surprised about someone else misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Because what you actually said didn't make much sense.
    And there was/is no inconsistency about how it works -actually it IS more consistent this way.

    Should have said initiative skills this whole time, and not just the word initiative. RIP.

    Doesn't make much of a difference here tbh. Current version is still more consistent than what you're suggesting.

    Which is why I stated it as an oversight. Thank you finding another one in Alacrity.

    What kind of logic is this? How do you go from "chilled was there in the beginning" to "which is why I stated it was oversight"? Even moreso when you suggest the opposite makes sense too when it comes to alacrity. I can't connect the dots here.

    I'm starting to think this is turning into a semantics issue only to derail the topic. Forget the term oversight. I also never said quickness should affect quickness, so we can forget that boon too.

    Which is why I bring up semantics. It was more accurate to give my opinion below instead of sticking to "it's an oversight." While true I used "stated" like "I said," but my perception of "Oversight" is not factual. Still can't read ANET's mind. "Oversight" was probably hyperbolic that only aided in your confusion.

    Ok, makes sense. But then if you don't explain exactly what you think then don't act surprised about someone taking your simplification and saying it doesn't make much sense when it doesn't. :x

    What is agreed is that both Alacrity, and Chilled cooldown debuff affect Thief's initiative the least. My opinion is I don't like boons/conditions affecting a classes unequally unless the game revolved around it more heavily (GW2 doesn't). I don't care if thief can clear chilled (if they spec for it which isn't hard) nor do I care that they lack Alacrity application anyway (which is hard to spec for). The OP wants to upend the Thief's initiative system with the goal to reduce it's perceived spam (and a lot of other game "balance"). If spam was truly the problem with thief then the easiest solution is to raise initiative costs on select skills, or a function change like turning a duel attack into two skills. Easiest doesn't necessarily mean best of course.

    Yes, they affect it the least, they're pretty much the opposite of each other and it's fine to have a mechanic that's unaffected by both. You don't like it and you're free to do so, there's not much to argue about here, because you either like something or you don't. If "I don't like it" is all you want to say here, then there's nothing to talk about. It's just that your claim that about chill and alacrity being an oversight didn't make much sense.

    Opposite? Technically Alacrity would need a movement speed increase a well. Not really for buffing Alacrity with speed.

    Yup, "PRETTY MUCH" opposite in the context we're talking about in addition to the other part of chill actually affecting thief, so not sure why we'd talk about the slow here -it's irrelevant and works the same as for other classes. If alacrity gave the speed to be LITERALLY the opposite of chill, thief would be affected by it as well, so it would still be irrelevant.
    Bottom line, I know what they do, so no worries here.

    Regardless of nitpicking, ANET is allowed to do whatever they feel fit, just as you are also allowed to like/dislike it. The forums are place to share opinions, and many dislike/like ANET's balance yet they come to "discuss" it here anyway. If you feel me calling it an oversight is hyperbolic that's fine too.

    Sure, didn't I literally say that if you just came to say that "you dislike it", then there's not much to talk about here? I'm not trying to change your opinion, what I said was that your simplified/hyperbolic statement that tried to serve as a justification didn't make much sense -because it didn't. Still free to dislike the mechanic.

    I should have made a longer post that was riddled with sarcasm and snark as my first post hoping it'd get the attention of the OP so I could then get in a long thread war with them simply to say, "I dislike their ideas, and those ideas wouldn't work." Live by your example, no?

    Ah yes, because you're the one to talk down about using sarcasm in posts, whatever you say. :D
    And since you asked -as far as I'm concerned about it, use whatever amount of sarcasm you need as long as you make sense. Why would I care?

    Since you were confused I will give a shot by shot remake:
    1. OP wants to change up Anet's balance (resource mechanics in this case).
    2. I wasn't fully on board with OP, but I did say there was a small inconsistency in chill affecting cooldowns/resources for some classes .
    3. OP felt thief was particularly spammy, so I said thief (although some rev utility stuff doesn't have a "cooldown" either, but they aren't necessarily effective if "spammed")
    4. Alacrity was also brought up as a inconsistency in regards to cooldowns on classes that might not have them.
    5. I stated thief was created in an environment where Chilled already existed, but Alacrity did not thus leaning me towards mentioning Chilled first. This mention didn't exclude the existence of Alacrity being in a similar vein.
    6. Confusion was created because I presumed everyone would know the long thought process that also required knowledge of the game from the beginning..
    7. I need to remember that people can't read minds, and might require more than a Twitter Post's length.
    8. Still not on board with upending a system, but I guess giving my opinion on Chilled is too much. Want to know what I think of Weakness?

    Thanks for the recap clearing up previous posts, remembering about people not reading minds seems to be important :p aaaaaand I still think that a skill that slows down cd recharge time not affecting skills without said cooldown is more consistent than inconsistent, but I guess we'll need to agree to disagree on that one, w/e.

    Yes, the math is correct. A skill without cooldown wouldn't be affected by chilled/alacrity. Imagine if our 1 spam farm was hindered? Oh dear oh my the posts we'd see here. Obviously, not all skills without "cooldown" are auto attack skills. Rather, it's the idea that half of the thieves kit (the weapon skills) becomes immune because their "cooldown" (metaphorically speaking) is in their initiative, and not the standard per ability cooldown. A pew pew soulbeast weapon set is affected in contrast. I don't want to do what the OP wishes by scrapping the mechanical idea of mana, I mean initiative. ANET has already decided on this by keeping it so far. I doubt my dislike is going to change that. Furthermore, my original post was mostly about combo fields and the chill was the last thought. I even left open what that change to chill could be with the, "in some way." Others want things to stay the same, of course. Changing it's description to fit the special use cases of no-cooldown abilities would be irritating and inconsistent.

    Soo... uh, now we agree that it's more consistent in the current form than it would be with your proposed change? I'm not even touching the autoattack issue, that wasn't my point at all. But if the skills without cooldown exist, because they're using a different resource, then them not being affected by CD-altering buffs/debuffs simply make sense. Rangers pewpew being affected is obvious, there's no reason why it shouldn't be.
    The thing is your main argument here is still "because I don't like it", which -again- is fine. But stop trying to claim it's somehow inconsistent when it's not or that it was an oversight when there's literally no reason to assume it was.
    It's like OP claiming that discarding different resource mechanics is a great way to balance the game. No, it's not, not even close. He just doesn't like those mechanics, there's no need to dress that opinion up in something it's not.

    I'm guessing you wanted an example for these cooldown related boon/condis. There are three paths that can be taken, but theory crafting specifics will be beyond this topic (oh how far we have driven off course).:

    1. Do Nothing. The most practical thing ANET can do, and requires no money that they probably don't have to waste on addressing this. Remember they did have to lay people off...
    2. Remove cooldown related boon/condi effects. The most dramatic thing, and risky because Alacrity is a feature for Chronos/Dat one Rev Build, and would make Chill another kitten snare that would need to be altered. Hindsight is 20/20 after seeing that Alacrity is such a spam inducing mess. To think they even tried nerfing the kitten out of mesmer! Shame.
    3. Alter functionality of Chilled and/or Alacrity. Similar results on changing Alacrity if people relied on its cooldown reducing benefits.

    Because I live in reality. I would choose option 1 given the practical circumstances like money, and the age of the game. Making a fiddly change wouldn't guarantee increased profit either. Pity. At best it'd need to be paired with a meaningful content update.

    To conclude. I don't like chilled, but now I really-really-really don't like Alacrity. I somewhat support anyone's effort on reducing spam, but I don't think re-classing will be possible any time Soon™. Thanks team.

    Ok.
    I, on the other hand, would pick 1 not because of money or possibilities, but because I think there's no reason to change it -I think additional mechanics in the game have easly their place in this game and there's no reason to suddenly eradicate them or alter the buffs affecting/not affecting them. But obviously that's also just my opinion.

    D:

    Does this emote has any purpose in your posts?

    Yes.

    D:

    What purpose exactly is it? :blush:

    To make the pretty people blush. What is more attractive than a bad guy? Because I'm bad at everything bebe.

    D:

    :astonished:

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

    So what we know... You edited out where you agreed about the issue with Necro. There are indeed examples of games that have common core designs. We learned that recharge timers are not “resources. And we also learned that there are games that use a common class foundation, but offer way more unique play styles, more unique roles and more unique skills than in GW2.

    And you can try to deny those above facts with misinformation, spin doctoring and editing, but it won’t make what I brought up as incorrect... Only makes you look like you are here to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t have a good grasp of things.

    Except as you might be able to tell by the fact have that little message saying "edited X:XX AM/PM", I never edited that out, because I never even said it. There are games that have one shared common resource with no secondary resource to distinguish them, but they are in the vast minority, and generally not example of great design. Cooldowns are resources. Ironically theyre actually more relevant resources than most resources, given that in just about every game that has mana, its merely a formality youre not going to run out of in any normal gameplay scenario. And no, thats just what you want to believe, but fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2.

    I can deny those "facts" by pointing out theyre not facts in the first place. Theyre, at best, your opinion. And it seems that your opinion is not shared by many people. Not here, not in other games, not even in the game industry as a whole. The biggest, most popular and even the most well designed games all follow a paradigm similiar to, if not identical to GW2s. Whereas the only example you gave was a niche game that eventually failed.

    Lying about a comment you made, and edited out, that acknowledged the issues isn't helping you here...

    Learn the differences before we continue...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Recharge

    "Recharge , alternatively cooldown or CD, is the interval of time (in seconds) after a skill or ability has been used before it can be used again."

    Main wording... "interval of time"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Energy

    "Energy functions similarly to the thief's initiative mechanic, although many of the revenant's skills still have a recharge time. Most skills (except auto-attacks) have an energy cost, ranging from 4 to 50. While out of combat, energy cannot go over 50%, and any energy over 50% is lost immediately upon leaving combat. While in combat, energy is able to drop to 0% and increase to 100%.

    Energy is replenished over time as indicated by the arrows to the left and right of the energy indicator. Each arrow indicates how many percentage units are gained or lost per second. When swapping to a new legend, the energy pool is instantly reset to 50%. As this is the only way to regain energy other than natural replenishment (or by using Ancient Echo), players will often swap legends when they have depleted their energy."

    Main wording "an energy cost".

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Initiative
    "Initiative is a skill cost mechanic unique to the thief profession. It replaces recharge on the thief's weapon skills with a pool of twelve points which are spent when the skills are used and gradually returns over time. Using initiative the thief is able to tactically attack an opponent with their own chains and bursts of damage until they run out of the resource."

    Main wording... "a skill cost" and " resource"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Life_force

    "Life force is the necromancer's resource that fuels Death Shroud and Reaper's Shroud. Life force is gained when players or NPCs die nearby (providing 10% life force per death, approximately within a range of 1,200 units) and through certain skills.[1] Death Shroud depletes life force and ends when it reaches zero."

    Main wording... "resource that fuels"

    Again, to be helpful... Recharge is an "interval of time" and... Resources are "an energy cost", "a skill cost" and "resource that fuels".

    And for this... "fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2."... Nice of you to acknowledge that a game (launched in 2004) with a common resource had greater diversity than GW2 after saying "you lose a lot of diversity and design space". But again, you don't know what you are talking about here... " The playstyles were very same-y"... As if a stalker and tanker playstyles were "same-y", or a mastermind and controller were "same-y" or a defender and a dominator were "same-y"... yeah...

    The only one lying here is you. Again, if I had edited a comment like youre claiming, why is it that none of my comments show that little "edited X:XX AM/PM" bit, huh? Are you trying to say that I hacked into the forums, somehow altered the code so that the edit would not be visible, all to then later try ot claim I didnt edit it? Yeah not thats stupid, you know its stupid, yet you continue to lie about it. Do try to realize when its time to quit the lie, yes?

    Semantics dont help your point. Fact is, cooldowns are a resource. You dont have a cooldown cost, but hey, if it was that easy, then you could just redefine any bar as the inverse (like say, Holosmiths heat bar which gets increased by any of the skills you use, and once you hit 100 youre locked out), and boom. They all suddenly arent resources anymore. Of course, thats silly. Because the original point is silly.

    Greater build diversity. Which is a very different thing from gameplay diversity. Its easy to have large build diversity, just have minor variations of the same skill 100 times and boom, you have thousands upon thousands of builds (ironically, this isnt too far off from what CoH did so). But gameplay diversity is harder. You need to have the classes feel distinct to play. Something CoH failed to accomplish. And yes, the classes felt same-y. Different animations, slightly different things they did, but you wouldnt be able to tell from playing them because boy you played them basically the same way. CoH was a minmaxers dream. But for regular players, the fact that everything felt the same was boring. So it failed.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

    So what we know... You edited out where you agreed about the issue with Necro. There are indeed examples of games that have common core designs. We learned that recharge timers are not “resources. And we also learned that there are games that use a common class foundation, but offer way more unique play styles, more unique roles and more unique skills than in GW2.

    And you can try to deny those above facts with misinformation, spin doctoring and editing, but it won’t make what I brought up as incorrect... Only makes you look like you are here to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t have a good grasp of things.

    Except as you might be able to tell by the fact have that little message saying "edited X:XX AM/PM", I never edited that out, because I never even said it. There are games that have one shared common resource with no secondary resource to distinguish them, but they are in the vast minority, and generally not example of great design. Cooldowns are resources. Ironically theyre actually more relevant resources than most resources, given that in just about every game that has mana, its merely a formality youre not going to run out of in any normal gameplay scenario. And no, thats just what you want to believe, but fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2.

    I can deny those "facts" by pointing out theyre not facts in the first place. Theyre, at best, your opinion. And it seems that your opinion is not shared by many people. Not here, not in other games, not even in the game industry as a whole. The biggest, most popular and even the most well designed games all follow a paradigm similiar to, if not identical to GW2s. Whereas the only example you gave was a niche game that eventually failed.

    Lying about a comment you made, and edited out, that acknowledged the issues isn't helping you here...

    Learn the differences before we continue...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Recharge

    "Recharge , alternatively cooldown or CD, is the interval of time (in seconds) after a skill or ability has been used before it can be used again."

    Main wording... "interval of time"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Energy

    "Energy functions similarly to the thief's initiative mechanic, although many of the revenant's skills still have a recharge time. Most skills (except auto-attacks) have an energy cost, ranging from 4 to 50. While out of combat, energy cannot go over 50%, and any energy over 50% is lost immediately upon leaving combat. While in combat, energy is able to drop to 0% and increase to 100%.

    Energy is replenished over time as indicated by the arrows to the left and right of the energy indicator. Each arrow indicates how many percentage units are gained or lost per second. When swapping to a new legend, the energy pool is instantly reset to 50%. As this is the only way to regain energy other than natural replenishment (or by using Ancient Echo), players will often swap legends when they have depleted their energy."

    Main wording "an energy cost".

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Initiative
    "Initiative is a skill cost mechanic unique to the thief profession. It replaces recharge on the thief's weapon skills with a pool of twelve points which are spent when the skills are used and gradually returns over time. Using initiative the thief is able to tactically attack an opponent with their own chains and bursts of damage until they run out of the resource."

    Main wording... "a skill cost" and " resource"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Life_force

    "Life force is the necromancer's resource that fuels Death Shroud and Reaper's Shroud. Life force is gained when players or NPCs die nearby (providing 10% life force per death, approximately within a range of 1,200 units) and through certain skills.[1] Death Shroud depletes life force and ends when it reaches zero."

    Main wording... "resource that fuels"

    Again, to be helpful... Recharge is an "interval of time" and... Resources are "an energy cost", "a skill cost" and "resource that fuels".

    And for this... "fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2."... Nice of you to acknowledge that a game (launched in 2004) with a common resource had greater diversity than GW2 after saying "you lose a lot of diversity and design space". But again, you don't know what you are talking about here... " The playstyles were very same-y"... As if a stalker and tanker playstyles were "same-y", or a mastermind and controller were "same-y" or a defender and a dominator were "same-y"... yeah...

    The only one lying here is you. Again, if I had edited a comment like youre claiming, why is it that none of my comments show that little "edited X:XX AM/PM" bit, huh? Are you trying to say that I hacked into the forums, somehow altered the code so that the edit would not be visible, all to then later try ot claim I didnt edit it? Yeah not thats stupid, you know its stupid, yet you continue to lie about it. Do try to realize when its time to quit the lie, yes?

    Semantics dont help your point. Fact is, cooldowns are a resource. You dont have a cooldown cost, but hey, if it was that easy, then you could just redefine any bar as the inverse (like say, Holosmiths heat bar which gets increased by any of the skills you use, and once you hit 100 youre locked out), and boom. They all suddenly arent resources anymore. Of course, thats silly. Because the original point is silly.

    Greater build diversity. Which is a very different thing from gameplay diversity. Its easy to have large build diversity, just have minor variations of the same skill 100 times and boom, you have thousands upon thousands of builds (ironically, this isnt too far off from what CoH did so). But gameplay diversity is harder. You need to have the classes feel distinct to play. Something CoH failed to accomplish. And yes, the classes felt same-y. Different animations, slightly different things they did, but you wouldnt be able to tell from playing them because boy you played them basically the same way. CoH was a minmaxers dream. But for regular players, the fact that everything felt the same was boring. So it failed.

    You deleted your original post and made a new one then. I read it and didn't have time to respond. You can attempt to lie to readers on the forums, but you can't lie to me or yourself.

    It's unfortunate that you seem to think a recharge timer is a resource, really puts things into perspective, to put mildly, on the topic.

    Is that a joke with the "gameplay diversity"? Build diversity adds to "gameplay diversity"... Tank roles, melee roles, ranged roles, healer roles, buffer roles, debuffer roles, cc roles, hybrid roles... al using the 1 common resource for classes... You seem to know zero about CoH compared to GW2, and completely ignoring the fact that Massively OP's writers disagree with you. And judging by your understanding of a skill recharge timer as a "resource", I guess I can understand where you level of thought is.

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

    So what we know... You edited out where you agreed about the issue with Necro. There are indeed examples of games that have common core designs. We learned that recharge timers are not “resources. And we also learned that there are games that use a common class foundation, but offer way more unique play styles, more unique roles and more unique skills than in GW2.

    And you can try to deny those above facts with misinformation, spin doctoring and editing, but it won’t make what I brought up as incorrect... Only makes you look like you are here to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t have a good grasp of things.

    Except as you might be able to tell by the fact have that little message saying "edited X:XX AM/PM", I never edited that out, because I never even said it. There are games that have one shared common resource with no secondary resource to distinguish them, but they are in the vast minority, and generally not example of great design. Cooldowns are resources. Ironically theyre actually more relevant resources than most resources, given that in just about every game that has mana, its merely a formality youre not going to run out of in any normal gameplay scenario. And no, thats just what you want to believe, but fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2.

    I can deny those "facts" by pointing out theyre not facts in the first place. Theyre, at best, your opinion. And it seems that your opinion is not shared by many people. Not here, not in other games, not even in the game industry as a whole. The biggest, most popular and even the most well designed games all follow a paradigm similiar to, if not identical to GW2s. Whereas the only example you gave was a niche game that eventually failed.

    Lying about a comment you made, and edited out, that acknowledged the issues isn't helping you here...

    Learn the differences before we continue...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Recharge

    "Recharge , alternatively cooldown or CD, is the interval of time (in seconds) after a skill or ability has been used before it can be used again."

    Main wording... "interval of time"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Energy

    "Energy functions similarly to the thief's initiative mechanic, although many of the revenant's skills still have a recharge time. Most skills (except auto-attacks) have an energy cost, ranging from 4 to 50. While out of combat, energy cannot go over 50%, and any energy over 50% is lost immediately upon leaving combat. While in combat, energy is able to drop to 0% and increase to 100%.

    Energy is replenished over time as indicated by the arrows to the left and right of the energy indicator. Each arrow indicates how many percentage units are gained or lost per second. When swapping to a new legend, the energy pool is instantly reset to 50%. As this is the only way to regain energy other than natural replenishment (or by using Ancient Echo), players will often swap legends when they have depleted their energy."

    Main wording "an energy cost".

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Initiative
    "Initiative is a skill cost mechanic unique to the thief profession. It replaces recharge on the thief's weapon skills with a pool of twelve points which are spent when the skills are used and gradually returns over time. Using initiative the thief is able to tactically attack an opponent with their own chains and bursts of damage until they run out of the resource."

    Main wording... "a skill cost" and " resource"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Life_force

    "Life force is the necromancer's resource that fuels Death Shroud and Reaper's Shroud. Life force is gained when players or NPCs die nearby (providing 10% life force per death, approximately within a range of 1,200 units) and through certain skills.[1] Death Shroud depletes life force and ends when it reaches zero."

    Main wording... "resource that fuels"

    Again, to be helpful... Recharge is an "interval of time" and... Resources are "an energy cost", "a skill cost" and "resource that fuels".

    And for this... "fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2."... Nice of you to acknowledge that a game (launched in 2004) with a common resource had greater diversity than GW2 after saying "you lose a lot of diversity and design space". But again, you don't know what you are talking about here... " The playstyles were very same-y"... As if a stalker and tanker playstyles were "same-y", or a mastermind and controller were "same-y" or a defender and a dominator were "same-y"... yeah...

    The only one lying here is you. Again, if I had edited a comment like youre claiming, why is it that none of my comments show that little "edited X:XX AM/PM" bit, huh? Are you trying to say that I hacked into the forums, somehow altered the code so that the edit would not be visible, all to then later try ot claim I didnt edit it? Yeah not thats stupid, you know its stupid, yet you continue to lie about it. Do try to realize when its time to quit the lie, yes?

    Semantics dont help your point. Fact is, cooldowns are a resource. You dont have a cooldown cost, but hey, if it was that easy, then you could just redefine any bar as the inverse (like say, Holosmiths heat bar which gets increased by any of the skills you use, and once you hit 100 youre locked out), and boom. They all suddenly arent resources anymore. Of course, thats silly. Because the original point is silly.

    Greater build diversity. Which is a very different thing from gameplay diversity. Its easy to have large build diversity, just have minor variations of the same skill 100 times and boom, you have thousands upon thousands of builds (ironically, this isnt too far off from what CoH did so). But gameplay diversity is harder. You need to have the classes feel distinct to play. Something CoH failed to accomplish. And yes, the classes felt same-y. Different animations, slightly different things they did, but you wouldnt be able to tell from playing them because boy you played them basically the same way. CoH was a minmaxers dream. But for regular players, the fact that everything felt the same was boring. So it failed.

    You deleted your original post and made a new one then. I read it and didn't have time to respond. You can attempt to lie to readers on the forums, but you can't lie to me or yourself.

    It's unfortunate that you seem to think a recharge timer is a resource, really puts things into perspective, to put mildly, on the topic.

    Is that a joke with the "gameplay diversity"? Build diversity adds to "gameplay diversity"... Tank roles, melee roles, ranged roles, healer roles, buffer roles, debuffer roles, cc roles, hybrid roles... al using the 1 common resource for classes... You seem to know zero about CoH compared to GW2, and completely ignoring the fact that Massively OP's writers disagree with you. And judging by your understanding of a skill recharge timer as a "resource", I guess I can understand where you level of thought is.

    Cute theory, but no. I never deleted or edited a post. Either you mistook me for someone else, or you made the whole thing up. Dont know, and frankly, dont particularly care.

    It doesnt. Build diversity is easy to make. Again, just have hundreds of skills that are very slightly different. You have millions of distinct builds, so insane build diversity, but, well, they all play the same. Great build diversity, and no gameplay diversity. Also, why would I care what some writers think, especially given that they seem to specifically lament the absence of build, but not gameplay diversity. And mate, I dont care if you dont like it, but cooldowns are a resource. Thats just game design 101.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

    So what we know... You edited out where you agreed about the issue with Necro. There are indeed examples of games that have common core designs. We learned that recharge timers are not “resources. And we also learned that there are games that use a common class foundation, but offer way more unique play styles, more unique roles and more unique skills than in GW2.

    And you can try to deny those above facts with misinformation, spin doctoring and editing, but it won’t make what I brought up as incorrect... Only makes you look like you are here to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t have a good grasp of things.

    Except as you might be able to tell by the fact have that little message saying "edited X:XX AM/PM", I never edited that out, because I never even said it. There are games that have one shared common resource with no secondary resource to distinguish them, but they are in the vast minority, and generally not example of great design. Cooldowns are resources. Ironically theyre actually more relevant resources than most resources, given that in just about every game that has mana, its merely a formality youre not going to run out of in any normal gameplay scenario. And no, thats just what you want to believe, but fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2.

    I can deny those "facts" by pointing out theyre not facts in the first place. Theyre, at best, your opinion. And it seems that your opinion is not shared by many people. Not here, not in other games, not even in the game industry as a whole. The biggest, most popular and even the most well designed games all follow a paradigm similiar to, if not identical to GW2s. Whereas the only example you gave was a niche game that eventually failed.

    Lying about a comment you made, and edited out, that acknowledged the issues isn't helping you here...

    Learn the differences before we continue...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Recharge

    "Recharge , alternatively cooldown or CD, is the interval of time (in seconds) after a skill or ability has been used before it can be used again."

    Main wording... "interval of time"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Energy

    "Energy functions similarly to the thief's initiative mechanic, although many of the revenant's skills still have a recharge time. Most skills (except auto-attacks) have an energy cost, ranging from 4 to 50. While out of combat, energy cannot go over 50%, and any energy over 50% is lost immediately upon leaving combat. While in combat, energy is able to drop to 0% and increase to 100%.

    Energy is replenished over time as indicated by the arrows to the left and right of the energy indicator. Each arrow indicates how many percentage units are gained or lost per second. When swapping to a new legend, the energy pool is instantly reset to 50%. As this is the only way to regain energy other than natural replenishment (or by using Ancient Echo), players will often swap legends when they have depleted their energy."

    Main wording "an energy cost".

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Initiative
    "Initiative is a skill cost mechanic unique to the thief profession. It replaces recharge on the thief's weapon skills with a pool of twelve points which are spent when the skills are used and gradually returns over time. Using initiative the thief is able to tactically attack an opponent with their own chains and bursts of damage until they run out of the resource."

    Main wording... "a skill cost" and " resource"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Life_force

    "Life force is the necromancer's resource that fuels Death Shroud and Reaper's Shroud. Life force is gained when players or NPCs die nearby (providing 10% life force per death, approximately within a range of 1,200 units) and through certain skills.[1] Death Shroud depletes life force and ends when it reaches zero."

    Main wording... "resource that fuels"

    Again, to be helpful... Recharge is an "interval of time" and... Resources are "an energy cost", "a skill cost" and "resource that fuels".

    And for this... "fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2."... Nice of you to acknowledge that a game (launched in 2004) with a common resource had greater diversity than GW2 after saying "you lose a lot of diversity and design space". But again, you don't know what you are talking about here... " The playstyles were very same-y"... As if a stalker and tanker playstyles were "same-y", or a mastermind and controller were "same-y" or a defender and a dominator were "same-y"... yeah...

    The only one lying here is you. Again, if I had edited a comment like youre claiming, why is it that none of my comments show that little "edited X:XX AM/PM" bit, huh? Are you trying to say that I hacked into the forums, somehow altered the code so that the edit would not be visible, all to then later try ot claim I didnt edit it? Yeah not thats stupid, you know its stupid, yet you continue to lie about it. Do try to realize when its time to quit the lie, yes?

    Semantics dont help your point. Fact is, cooldowns are a resource. You dont have a cooldown cost, but hey, if it was that easy, then you could just redefine any bar as the inverse (like say, Holosmiths heat bar which gets increased by any of the skills you use, and once you hit 100 youre locked out), and boom. They all suddenly arent resources anymore. Of course, thats silly. Because the original point is silly.

    Greater build diversity. Which is a very different thing from gameplay diversity. Its easy to have large build diversity, just have minor variations of the same skill 100 times and boom, you have thousands upon thousands of builds (ironically, this isnt too far off from what CoH did so). But gameplay diversity is harder. You need to have the classes feel distinct to play. Something CoH failed to accomplish. And yes, the classes felt same-y. Different animations, slightly different things they did, but you wouldnt be able to tell from playing them because boy you played them basically the same way. CoH was a minmaxers dream. But for regular players, the fact that everything felt the same was boring. So it failed.

    You deleted your original post and made a new one then. I read it and didn't have time to respond. You can attempt to lie to readers on the forums, but you can't lie to me or yourself.

    It's unfortunate that you seem to think a recharge timer is a resource, really puts things into perspective, to put mildly, on the topic.

    Is that a joke with the "gameplay diversity"? Build diversity adds to "gameplay diversity"... Tank roles, melee roles, ranged roles, healer roles, buffer roles, debuffer roles, cc roles, hybrid roles... al using the 1 common resource for classes... You seem to know zero about CoH compared to GW2, and completely ignoring the fact that Massively OP's writers disagree with you. And judging by your understanding of a skill recharge timer as a "resource", I guess I can understand where you level of thought is.

    Cute theory, but no. I never deleted or edited a post. Either you mistook me for someone else, or you made the whole thing up. Dont know, and frankly, dont particularly care.

    It doesnt. Build diversity is easy to make. Again, just have hundreds of skills that are very slightly different. You have millions of distinct builds, so insane build diversity, but, well, they all play the same. Great build diversity, and no gameplay diversity. Also, why would I care what some writers think, especially given that they seem to specifically lament the absence of build, but not gameplay diversity. And mate, I dont care if you dont like it, but cooldowns are a resource. Thats just game design 101.

    Actually, you did.

    You use terms like "gameplay diversity" as an empty talking point and can't articulate what it means.

    You don't understand game design then, nor simple gaming terminology, even when provided quotes from the game.

    And btw, I can now understand why you are worried about initiative being changed.

  • Sobx.1758Sobx.1758 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

    So what we know... You edited out where you agreed about the issue with Necro. There are indeed examples of games that have common core designs. We learned that recharge timers are not “resources. And we also learned that there are games that use a common class foundation, but offer way more unique play styles, more unique roles and more unique skills than in GW2.

    And you can try to deny those above facts with misinformation, spin doctoring and editing, but it won’t make what I brought up as incorrect... Only makes you look like you are here to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t have a good grasp of things.

    Except as you might be able to tell by the fact have that little message saying "edited X:XX AM/PM", I never edited that out, because I never even said it. There are games that have one shared common resource with no secondary resource to distinguish them, but they are in the vast minority, and generally not example of great design. Cooldowns are resources. Ironically theyre actually more relevant resources than most resources, given that in just about every game that has mana, its merely a formality youre not going to run out of in any normal gameplay scenario. And no, thats just what you want to believe, but fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2.

    I can deny those "facts" by pointing out theyre not facts in the first place. Theyre, at best, your opinion. And it seems that your opinion is not shared by many people. Not here, not in other games, not even in the game industry as a whole. The biggest, most popular and even the most well designed games all follow a paradigm similiar to, if not identical to GW2s. Whereas the only example you gave was a niche game that eventually failed.

    Lying about a comment you made, and edited out, that acknowledged the issues isn't helping you here...

    Learn the differences before we continue...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Recharge

    "Recharge , alternatively cooldown or CD, is the interval of time (in seconds) after a skill or ability has been used before it can be used again."

    Main wording... "interval of time"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Energy

    "Energy functions similarly to the thief's initiative mechanic, although many of the revenant's skills still have a recharge time. Most skills (except auto-attacks) have an energy cost, ranging from 4 to 50. While out of combat, energy cannot go over 50%, and any energy over 50% is lost immediately upon leaving combat. While in combat, energy is able to drop to 0% and increase to 100%.

    Energy is replenished over time as indicated by the arrows to the left and right of the energy indicator. Each arrow indicates how many percentage units are gained or lost per second. When swapping to a new legend, the energy pool is instantly reset to 50%. As this is the only way to regain energy other than natural replenishment (or by using Ancient Echo), players will often swap legends when they have depleted their energy."

    Main wording "an energy cost".

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Initiative
    "Initiative is a skill cost mechanic unique to the thief profession. It replaces recharge on the thief's weapon skills with a pool of twelve points which are spent when the skills are used and gradually returns over time. Using initiative the thief is able to tactically attack an opponent with their own chains and bursts of damage until they run out of the resource."

    Main wording... "a skill cost" and " resource"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Life_force

    "Life force is the necromancer's resource that fuels Death Shroud and Reaper's Shroud. Life force is gained when players or NPCs die nearby (providing 10% life force per death, approximately within a range of 1,200 units) and through certain skills.[1] Death Shroud depletes life force and ends when it reaches zero."

    Main wording... "resource that fuels"

    Again, to be helpful... Recharge is an "interval of time" and... Resources are "an energy cost", "a skill cost" and "resource that fuels".

    And for this... "fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2."... Nice of you to acknowledge that a game (launched in 2004) with a common resource had greater diversity than GW2 after saying "you lose a lot of diversity and design space". But again, you don't know what you are talking about here... " The playstyles were very same-y"... As if a stalker and tanker playstyles were "same-y", or a mastermind and controller were "same-y" or a defender and a dominator were "same-y"... yeah...

    The only one lying here is you. Again, if I had edited a comment like youre claiming, why is it that none of my comments show that little "edited X:XX AM/PM" bit, huh? Are you trying to say that I hacked into the forums, somehow altered the code so that the edit would not be visible, all to then later try ot claim I didnt edit it? Yeah not thats stupid, you know its stupid, yet you continue to lie about it. Do try to realize when its time to quit the lie, yes?

    Semantics dont help your point. Fact is, cooldowns are a resource. You dont have a cooldown cost, but hey, if it was that easy, then you could just redefine any bar as the inverse (like say, Holosmiths heat bar which gets increased by any of the skills you use, and once you hit 100 youre locked out), and boom. They all suddenly arent resources anymore. Of course, thats silly. Because the original point is silly.

    Greater build diversity. Which is a very different thing from gameplay diversity. Its easy to have large build diversity, just have minor variations of the same skill 100 times and boom, you have thousands upon thousands of builds (ironically, this isnt too far off from what CoH did so). But gameplay diversity is harder. You need to have the classes feel distinct to play. Something CoH failed to accomplish. And yes, the classes felt same-y. Different animations, slightly different things they did, but you wouldnt be able to tell from playing them because boy you played them basically the same way. CoH was a minmaxers dream. But for regular players, the fact that everything felt the same was boring. So it failed.

    You deleted your original post and made a new one then. I read it and didn't have time to respond. You can attempt to lie to readers on the forums, but you can't lie to me or yourself.

    How exactly did he delete his own post?
    tbh it's hilarious you insisted he edited his post, but when proven wrong, you start claiming he must have deleted it and rewrote it altogether. wtkitten, that's a new one :lol:

  • UNOwen.7132UNOwen.7132 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @UNOwen.7132 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    @UNOwen.7132 '
    Maybe you missed this too...

    And just a reminder...

    “lowers gameplay diversity”
    "you lose a lot of diversity and design space for absolutely no good reason at all"
    “You have yet to bring up a single, solitary game that supports your point”...

    https://massivelyop.com/2019/03/28/massively-overthinking-thoughts-on-the-holy-trinity-in-mmos/

    “ Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): Fun fact: I still remember when “holy trinity” meant tank, healer, and mezzer – the DPS players were a given, the warm bodies that filled out the rest of the group, and not part of the trinity back in the early pre-WoW days of MMO group content. The fact that this shifted over time really says all you need to know about how MMO class and combat design have changed, and not necessarily for the better.

    Don’t mistake me; I no longer believe we need or must respect a trinity of either type. But what I truly resent is the loss of class variation and combat flow that naturally accompanied the demise of the classic trinity, specifically the fact that crowd control, buffing, and debuffing classes have all but disappeared in the modern rush to make nearly everyone a damage-dealer, even the healers and tanks.

    As an example, I can still think of none better than City of Heroes, which offered all of the old trinity and new trinity class types (and then some) but made none of them actually mandatory to clear content. Yes, tanks and healers and CCers and buffers and debuffers and damage dealers all existed, but it was completely possible to get through the game with no healers, or all healers. With a scrapper tanking ahead of a fleet of corruptors. With a stalker and four controllers. With three bubblers and three tankers. Whatever. I don’t want to see strict trinity MMOs, but I’m even grumpier about the “everyone deeps” MMOs even more, especially when the end result is kitten combat where nobody ever has control over the fight. It didn’t have to be that way, but modernish devs keep reinventing the wheel, convinced they can do better. Maybe someday, they will, but so far, nah.”

    Holy wall of text. Well, Im not gonna read all of it, mainly because that is too much effort, and I remember CoH anyway. Yes, CoH had less gameplay diversity. Having many different sets of numbers didnt change the fact that the moment to moment gameplay boiled down to the same basic concept for (almost) all characters. And of course, the design space was much, much narrower. Thats why so many skills were just variations of the same basic concept (or even just the same skill with different damage values).

    So what we know... You edited out where you agreed about the issue with Necro. There are indeed examples of games that have common core designs. We learned that recharge timers are not “resources. And we also learned that there are games that use a common class foundation, but offer way more unique play styles, more unique roles and more unique skills than in GW2.

    And you can try to deny those above facts with misinformation, spin doctoring and editing, but it won’t make what I brought up as incorrect... Only makes you look like you are here to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t have a good grasp of things.

    Except as you might be able to tell by the fact have that little message saying "edited X:XX AM/PM", I never edited that out, because I never even said it. There are games that have one shared common resource with no secondary resource to distinguish them, but they are in the vast minority, and generally not example of great design. Cooldowns are resources. Ironically theyre actually more relevant resources than most resources, given that in just about every game that has mana, its merely a formality youre not going to run out of in any normal gameplay scenario. And no, thats just what you want to believe, but fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2.

    I can deny those "facts" by pointing out theyre not facts in the first place. Theyre, at best, your opinion. And it seems that your opinion is not shared by many people. Not here, not in other games, not even in the game industry as a whole. The biggest, most popular and even the most well designed games all follow a paradigm similiar to, if not identical to GW2s. Whereas the only example you gave was a niche game that eventually failed.

    Lying about a comment you made, and edited out, that acknowledged the issues isn't helping you here...

    Learn the differences before we continue...

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Recharge

    "Recharge , alternatively cooldown or CD, is the interval of time (in seconds) after a skill or ability has been used before it can be used again."

    Main wording... "interval of time"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Energy

    "Energy functions similarly to the thief's initiative mechanic, although many of the revenant's skills still have a recharge time. Most skills (except auto-attacks) have an energy cost, ranging from 4 to 50. While out of combat, energy cannot go over 50%, and any energy over 50% is lost immediately upon leaving combat. While in combat, energy is able to drop to 0% and increase to 100%.

    Energy is replenished over time as indicated by the arrows to the left and right of the energy indicator. Each arrow indicates how many percentage units are gained or lost per second. When swapping to a new legend, the energy pool is instantly reset to 50%. As this is the only way to regain energy other than natural replenishment (or by using Ancient Echo), players will often swap legends when they have depleted their energy."

    Main wording "an energy cost".

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Initiative
    "Initiative is a skill cost mechanic unique to the thief profession. It replaces recharge on the thief's weapon skills with a pool of twelve points which are spent when the skills are used and gradually returns over time. Using initiative the thief is able to tactically attack an opponent with their own chains and bursts of damage until they run out of the resource."

    Main wording... "a skill cost" and " resource"

    https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Life_force

    "Life force is the necromancer's resource that fuels Death Shroud and Reaper's Shroud. Life force is gained when players or NPCs die nearby (providing 10% life force per death, approximately within a range of 1,200 units) and through certain skills.[1] Death Shroud depletes life force and ends when it reaches zero."

    Main wording... "resource that fuels"

    Again, to be helpful... Recharge is an "interval of time" and... Resources are "an energy cost", "a skill cost" and "resource that fuels".

    And for this... "fact is City of Heroes, while having great build diversity, had very low gameplay diversity. The playstyles were very same-y. The same cant be said for GW2."... Nice of you to acknowledge that a game (launched in 2004) with a common resource had greater diversity than GW2 after saying "you lose a lot of diversity and design space". But again, you don't know what you are talking about here... " The playstyles were very same-y"... As if a stalker and tanker playstyles were "same-y", or a mastermind and controller were "same-y" or a defender and a dominator were "same-y"... yeah...

    The only one lying here is you. Again, if I had edited a comment like youre claiming, why is it that none of my comments show that little "edited X:XX AM/PM" bit, huh? Are you trying to say that I hacked into the forums, somehow altered the code so that the edit would not be visible, all to then later try ot claim I didnt edit it? Yeah not thats stupid, you know its stupid, yet you continue to lie about it. Do try to realize when its time to quit the lie, yes?

    Semantics dont help your point. Fact is, cooldowns are a resource. You dont have a cooldown cost, but hey, if it was that easy, then you could just redefine any bar as the inverse (like say, Holosmiths heat bar which gets increased by any of the skills you use, and once you hit 100 youre locked out), and boom. They all suddenly arent resources anymore. Of course, thats silly. Because the original point is silly.

    Greater build diversity. Which is a very different thing from gameplay diversity. Its easy to have large build diversity, just have minor variations of the same skill 100 times and boom, you have thousands upon thousands of builds (ironically, this isnt too far off from what CoH did so). But gameplay diversity is harder. You need to have the classes feel distinct to play. Something CoH failed to accomplish. And yes, the classes felt same-y. Different animations, slightly different things they did, but you wouldnt be able to tell from playing them because boy you played them basically the same way. CoH was a minmaxers dream. But for regular players, the fact that everything felt the same was boring. So it failed.

    You deleted your original post and made a new one then. I read it and didn't have time to respond. You can attempt to lie to readers on the forums, but you can't lie to me or yourself.

    It's unfortunate that you seem to think a recharge timer is a resource, really puts things into perspective, to put mildly, on the topic.

    Is that a joke with the "gameplay diversity"? Build diversity adds to "gameplay diversity"... Tank roles, melee roles, ranged roles, healer roles, buffer roles, debuffer roles, cc roles, hybrid roles... al using the 1 common resource for classes... You seem to know zero about CoH compared to GW2, and completely ignoring the fact that Massively OP's writers disagree with you. And judging by your understanding of a skill recharge timer as a "resource", I guess I can understand where you level of thought is.

    Cute theory, but no. I never deleted or edited a post. Either you mistook me for someone else, or you made the whole thing up. Dont know, and frankly, dont particularly care.

    It doesnt. Build diversity is easy to make. Again, just have hundreds of skills that are very slightly different. You have millions of distinct builds, so insane build diversity, but, well, they all play the same. Great build diversity, and no gameplay diversity. Also, why would I care what some writers think, especially given that they seem to specifically lament the absence of build, but not gameplay diversity. And mate, I dont care if you dont like it, but cooldowns are a resource. Thats just game design 101.

    Actually, you did.

    You use terms like "gameplay diversity" as an empty talking point and can't articulate what it means.

    You don't understand game design then, nor simple gaming terminology, even when provided quotes from the game.

    And btw, I can now understand why you are worried about initiative being changed.

    Im not going to repeat myself any more with that, so lets set the record straight, once and for all. I did neither edit nor delete a comment. Either you mistook me for someone else, you imagined it, or youre lying out your teeth. I assume its the third one, but I dont know. There, that should be clear enough.

    Of course I can. Gameplay diversity is a pretty simple concept, is when there are multiple different styles of active gameplay, operating under different paradigms. Usually that means a different approach to movement, to damage avoidance, to damage dealing, to range manipulation, or all of the above. For example, take thief and lets say Revenant. Specifically Power Shiro sword revenant. Conceptually, theyre quite similiar, both are high damage relatively low survivability high damage builds involving active evades, and high mobility.

    However, they play quite differently. Due to the way cooldowns work, the Revenant is encouraged to frontload the burst, then either clean up with autoattacks, or (more likely) swap to the alternate weapon and start burning through cooldowns there. Meanwhile the thief, due to his lack of cooldowns, but his limitation through initiative, instead is encouraged to space out his skills, and in fact is discouraged from swapping weapons mid-combat (thereby making thieves second weapon a utility choice rather than a damage dealing choice like it is for the other classes). The revenant goes in deep, hits hard and stays there, while the thief weaves in and out of range (or combat even) and instead aims to wear you down.

    Now in City of Heroes? That kinda difference doesnt really exist. Every build, while a different coat of paint was on them, and different numbers were at work behind the scenes, played more or less the same. You stood still, went through your rotation, and the enemies died.