What are your thoughts on the vision of more active gameplay — Guild Wars 2 Forums

What are your thoughts on the vision of more active gameplay

Bealis.6023Bealis.6023 Member ✭✭
edited February 4, 2020 in Professions

Hello,
as upcomming balance patches are going to wrap around an idea of more active gameplay in terms of skills, I would like to know what are your thoughts and/or expectations of how this setup could look like in-game? After going through the patch notes on the skills, I feel like I like the direction but I still dont fully grasp how the skills/builds will prompt players to play more actively. I get a better picture on competitive modes , but pve is a whole new playground.
From my understanding, some specific builds could benefit from certain level of stagnation, basically being spammy without much thinking. But there are some big hits like removing stunbreaks and stability, or SB pet restriction, which might actually lead players to be more careful and less active in some aspects.
I know this is a challenging ballance and I really appreciate the effort, I guess we just need to wait for more benefits when all comes rolling.

Comments

  • Hannelore.8153Hannelore.8153 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2020

    It seems more like they're trying to go for slower, more thoughtful gameplay, not more "active". The game is already extremely active and that's part of the problem, they specifically said spamming skills is one of the issues they're trying to deal with.

    When they say more active gameplay, they're referring to player response in other words reactive gameplay, not the "action game" definition of active gameplay, which has plagued GW2 for a long time in increasing quantities.

    The game's become a skill-spam noisefest that makes metal concerts look tame in comparison.

    Hannah | Daisuki[SUKI] Founder, Ehmry Bay (formerly Jade Quarry) | Mains Mariyuuna/Tempest & Terakura/Spellbreaker | ♀♥♀

  • @Hannelore.8153 said:
    It seems more like they're trying to go for slower, more thoughtful gameplay, not more "active". The game is already extremely active and that's part of the problem, they specifically said spamming skills is one of the issues they're trying to deal with.

    When they say more active gameplay, they're referring to player response in other words reactive gameplay, not the "action game" definition of active gameplay, which has plagued GW2 for a long time in increasing quantities.

    The game's become a skill-spam noisefest that makes metal concerts look tame in comparison.

    Yes thats what I have been wondering, so its more like a term for being more reactive. That makes sense and patch notes reflect it in a way.
    For instance I believe that Necro have been among most favourite proffesions mostly for a bad reason, since players usually said "I rush there and things just die, without a hassle as some other classes".
    I am still a bit worried though how those changes affect options for builds in pve, if it will actually promote experimentation or not.
    So that makes charr metal concert most noisy x)

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 4, 2020

    @Bealis.6023 said:
    Yes thats what I have been wondering, so its more like a term for being more reactive. That makes sense and patch notes reflect it in a way.

    It doesn't make thing more reactive nor does it require the player to be more reactive. It reduce the pace of the game opening a larger window of opportunity to react. That's what the sPvP/WvW change does.

    For instance I believe that Necro have been among most favourite proffesions mostly for a bad reason, since players usually said "I rush there and things just die, without a hassle as some other classes".

    Nope, it's just that the dark theme of the necromancer have much appeal to the base. De facto the necromancer have lower potential in everything except boon hate. It's a no brainer to use one for the simple reason that the niche of the necromancer directly counter what make the other professions meta build strong: boons.

    I am still a bit worried though how those changes affect options for builds in pve, if it will actually promote experimentation or not.

    PvE won't be affected at all. The lowered damage and sustain will only happen in sPvP/WvW. Apart for revenant (which get yet another rework), the change that will affect PvE aren't very significant in the end, it merely open up some minor options for a few dps builds. Professions that were strong in PvE will stay mostly strong and professions that weren't popular will stay unpopular. (To take the easily antagonized necromancer as an example, the only thing that he gain from this patch in PvE is a slight QoL improvement in jumping puzzles throught the reduced CD of spectral walk.)

  • Bealis.6023Bealis.6023 Member ✭✭
    edited February 4, 2020

    @Dadnir.5038 said:
    It doesn't make thing more reactive nor does it require the player to be more reactive. It reduce the pace of the game opening a larger window of opportunity to react. That's what the sPvP/WvW change does.

    Isnt that play on words? I reacted on the reaction that active gameplay philosophy is about better reaction :) It encompasses the pace.
    You are probably right on the changes, but i was refering to fundamentals from ballance changes that come also to pve. These are most likely for a long term plan, which is safe to assume there will come more updates to pve on that basis.

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bealis.6023 said:

    @Dadnir.5038 said:
    It doesn't make thing more reactive nor does it require the player to be more reactive. It reduce the pace of the game opening a larger window of opportunity to react. That's what the sPvP/WvW change does.

    Isnt that play on words? I reacted on the reaction that active gameplay philosophy is about better reaction :) It encompasses the pace.
    You are probably right on the changes, but i was refering to fundamentals from ballance changes that come also to pve. These are most likely for a long term plan, which is safe to assume there will come more updates to pve on that basis.

    But fondamentally they don't do anything to the PvE balance philosophy. It's in fact the opposite of what you think, they seem content with how PvE is and this patch show that they don't want to touch the statut quo in this gamemode. If anything it say that they focus themself on sPvP/WvW balance even more and don't care whether or not PvE balance will rot. Afterall, the last balance patch was already saying that: "We are conscious that you aren't satisfied with sPvP/WvW balance and we will on it". In the process of the last patch some thing were broken and hurted PvE but they clearly showed that it left them unfazed.

  • @Dadnir.5038 said:
    But fondamentally they don't do anything to the PvE balance philosophy. It's in fact the opposite of what you think, they seem content with how PvE is and this patch show that they don't want to touch the statut quo in this gamemode. If anything it say that they focus themself on sPvP/WvW balance even more and don't care whether or not PvE balance will rot. Afterall, the last balance patch was already saying that: "We are conscious that you aren't satisfied with sPvP/WvW balance and we will on it". In the process of the last patch some thing were broken and hurted PvE but they clearly showed that it left them unfazed.

    :( Hope might be a way to disillusion sometimes right .) Its true that there is a clear preference to work on competitive modes, which is strange since PVE isnt just about open world, its basically a whole game, not to mention that skill spamming and unused builds are more prevalent in PVE. Ty for the heads-up.

  • jaif.3518jaif.3518 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dadnir.5038 said:

    @Bealis.6023 said:
    For instance I believe that Necro have been among most favourite proffesions mostly for a bad reason, since players usually said "I rush there and things just die, without a hassle as some other classes".

    Nope, it's just that the dark theme of the necromancer have much appeal to the base. De facto the necromancer have lower potential in everything except boon hate. It's a no brainer to use one for the simple reason that the niche of the necromancer directly counter what make the other professions meta build strong: boons.

    No. In WvW it's exactly as the other poster said. If you grab a scourge, learn to piano your skills correctly, and play follow-the-leader, you will be useful and you will profit. They provide offense, defense, and some support in one package, and do so without using projectiles. It's a pugger's dream, and scales to more skillful guilds as well.

    To the original question, I think the intent of the design is to force people to use their skills more thoughtfully, both actively and re-actively. So you consider carefully which cooldown to blow in order to force a reaction from your opponent, and so on.

    I have no idea how this will translate in WvW - I think this is far too big for anybody to guess it.

    -Jeff

  • Dadnir.5038Dadnir.5038 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @jaif.3518 said:
    No. In WvW it's exactly as the other poster said. If you grab a scourge, learn to piano your skills correctly, and play follow-the-leader, you will be useful and you will profit. They provide offense, defense, and some support in one package, and do so without using projectiles. It's a pugger's dream, and scales to more skillful guilds as well.

    Is there a point of looking at thing in the context of PoF scourge while we have 7 years of context? You could have said the same thing about elementalist in the core game with it's package of combo field providing offense defense and support in a single package being a "pug dream".

    The necromancer have always been part of the WvW meta providing sensibly the same package than scourge yet he wasn't overwhelmingly popular like scourge is. This only mean that the scourge is/was broken.

    Furthermore, I what I answer to say:

    For instance I believe that Necro have been among most favourite proffesions mostly for a bad reason, since players usually said "I rush there and things just die, without a hassle as some other classes".

    Which clearly isn't a scourge thing but instead more a core or reaper thing since a scourge that rush on something is just a dead scourge.

  • Bealis.6023Bealis.6023 Member ✭✭
    edited February 6, 2020

    @jaif.3518 said:
    To the original question, I think the intent of the design is to force people to use their skills more thoughtfully, both actively and re-actively. So you consider carefully which cooldown to blow in order to force a reaction from your opponent, and so on.

    I have no idea how this will translate in WvW - I think this is far too big for anybody to guess it.

    Hi, yes, it actually sounds fun, I just hope it wont be too much of an overkill. You are right its still too soon to be really talking about something specific until the patches are on and we see it + theres a big difference between game modes.
    For example, noone would want mobs in pve to be huge dmg sponges, better is for them to die faster but be more effective themselves to promote builds other than dps. Thats maybe why pve update wont be that big with this one, since it comes with updating on the side of mobs/bosses aslo, maybe masteries too and many other things.
    I think devs are doing great job, not rushing things and going through feedback. It must be hard though discerning specific things out of players who defend their profession with hidden intent.

  • Genesis.5169Genesis.5169 Member ✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2020

    To the OP they are going in the opposite directions going out of their way to increase cool downs and even saying we don't want people using skills in general in the comments..

    People always used their skills thoughtfully this akin to the argument bad people make in fighting game when they say the game is too spammy but in reality you just got hit with calculated hits that turned into big damage, so anet response was to reduce cooldowns so people have to track their moves alot less thus lowing the skill floor and skill ceiling for everyone.

    Man....i got alot more to say but nothing good ill leave it there tho.

    I asked for SPvP changes but i never asked for this...
    This game is ruled by the OW community to the detriment of all other game modes..

  • @Genesis.5169 said:

    People always used their skills thoughtfully this akin to the argument bad people make in fighting game when they say the game is too spammy but in reality you just got hit with calculated hits the turned into big damage, so anet response was to reduce cooldowns so people have to track their moves alot less thus lowing the skill floor and skill ceiling for everyone.
    Man....i got alot more to say but nothing good ill leave it there tho.

    I noticed that too that they are reducing some cooldowns, which bugged me, I would rather have increased cooldown over limiting pet mechanic. Good point.

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2020

    @Bealis.6023 said:
    Hello,
    as upcomming balance patches are going to wrap around an idea of more active gameplay in terms of skills, I would like to know what are your thoughts and/or expectations of how this setup could look like in-game? After going through the patch notes on the skills, I feel like I like the direction but I still dont fully grasp how the skills/builds will prompt players to play more actively. I get a better picture on competitive modes , but pve is a whole new playground.
    From my understanding, some specific builds could benefit from certain level of stagnation, basically being spammy without much thinking. But there are some big hits like removing stunbreaks and stability, or SB pet restriction, which might actually lead players to be more careful and less active in some aspects.
    I know this is a challenging ballance and I really appreciate the effort, I guess we just need to wait for more benefits when all comes rolling.

    ITs a good direction that ideally is not going to be a smooth transition especially if anet does not do a few more reworks across traits and skills that were changed just to fit the masses of everyone else.

    For example
    CC attacs like Headbutt and Executioners Scythe have skill bloat tied into them that does not matter with anet ideal direction but they were changed because the masses changed. Now parts that weight into the skill are still there bloating it that dont really matter.

    Another example is with nerfing traits to a point they become too unrealistically situational. No one wants a trait they cant reliably depend on even if its one with a long cooldown which means people go from one passive thing to another passive thing and never look at the one that changed because ideally its a dead trait for 14 minutes and 54 seconds of a potential 15 minute pvp match. A great example is right at the start of the notes with warrior and endure pain, its going to only activate twice per match and only for a few seconds each time.
    Increasing the passive cd on Endure pain to 300 seconds will jus push people to take Armored Attack which is ideally just as passive if not more passive than endure pain it just has a lesser effect but its an effect people know they can count on being active. Throughout a match.

    Ideally traits like this need to be redesigned to provide a lesser passive but a rare strong active even if the active has a long cd like 300s.
    For example people might still use "Last stand" because while its active can only be triggered every 300 seconds at least its always passively going to be semi useful if players opt to run the active stances on their utility bar.

    Additionally making global changes with wording that wont fit all game modes is troubling the more relevant example i can think of is with necro in who they wanted to remove stability but also improve their active stunbreaks which is true in pve but they did the opposite in pvp which has some necromancer players pulling their hair out.

    The good sides of this direction can be seen though for example

    The choice to generally cut damage on the majority of cc and lower overall damage

    How ever in some choices like your example with soulbeast being locked to 1 pet those changes are good as they enforce a sense of thinking and choice making that is more active than passive. You choose which pet you want before you go in which is an active choice and also balances them out a bit more.

    On some professions the changes do push more active choices and play styles while on others in warriors case it some of the choices do not and only promote more passive choice making.

  • Bealis.6023Bealis.6023 Member ✭✭
    edited February 6, 2020

    Heloo thx for the input. Iam still a torn about this though:

    @ZDragon.3046 said:
    How ever in some choices like your example with soulbeast being locked to 1 pet those changes are good as they enforce a sense of thinking and choice making that is more active than passive. You choose which pet you want before you go in which is an active choice and also balances them out a bit more.

    Since theoreticaly yes, you get a sense of planning. But in in-game experience you are usually allready well aware of your 2 pets. Often, when players want to get fast throught a combat scenario, they paradoxically dont bother and stay with one pet either way. It starts to get different when in long fights like metas or fractals. So for some traits to kick in (if you have them), your basically forced to unmerge either way (+to use pets unmerged ability). So in this scenario, which is basically 50% of Soulbeast gameplay, you get the option to change pet to adapt. And players who change it like that always do it actively, not without thinking. So in some sense actually those players that dont think dont have a need for second pet. Might be just my view though :)

  • Zexanima.7851Zexanima.7851 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bealis.6023 said:

    @Genesis.5169 said:

    People always used their skills thoughtfully this akin to the argument bad people make in fighting game when they say the game is too spammy but in reality you just got hit with calculated hits the turned into big damage, so anet response was to reduce cooldowns so people have to track their moves alot less thus lowing the skill floor and skill ceiling for everyone.
    Man....i got alot more to say but nothing good ill leave it there tho.

    I noticed that too that they are reducing some cooldowns, which bugged me, I would rather have increased cooldown over limiting pet mechanic. Good point.

    I view this differently. To me this draws the focus away from tactics and more onto strategy. A higher APM also locks out plays who, while they might know what to do, simply can't react fast enough. If you can't track your opponents movements then it's not very interactive gameplay. This won't change the way you have to remember moves, it'll be the more or less the same. You'll just not have to keep track of them as fast. Of course there needs to be a good balance because it is an action oriented video game. It shouldn't be even close to the same pace as a fighting game though, this is an RPG. Generally RPG's are more "chess" than they are "street fighter" and GW2 seems to try to be somewhere in the middle. I think it has been leaning too much to the more fast paced side with the plethora of boons and instant cast skills. I welcome this change.

    Depression and anxiety are the worst...

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bealis.6023 said:
    Heloo thx for the input. Iam still a torn about this though:

    @ZDragon.3046 said:
    How ever in some choices like your example with soulbeast being locked to 1 pet those changes are good as they enforce a sense of thinking and choice making that is more active than passive. You choose which pet you want before you go in which is an active choice and also balances them out a bit more.

    Since theoreticaly yes, you get a sense of planning. But in in-game experience you are usually allready well aware of your 2 pets. Often, when players want to get fast throught a combat scenario, they paradoxically dont bother and stay with one pet either way. It starts to get different when in long fights like metas or fractals. So for some traits to kick in (if you have them), your basically forced to unmerge either way (+to use pets unmerged ability). So in this scenario, which is basically 50% of Soulbeast gameplay, you get the option to change pet to adapt. And players who change it like that always do it actively, not without thinking. So in some sense actually those players that dont think dont have a need for second pet. Might be just my view though :)

    In pve this understandable however in pvp i think having 2 pets on soulbeast is slightly too much people argued that while merged they didnt have a pet at all so that was the trade off but people could easily by enough time to murge fire off any skills then un merge swap pets for both sets of pet actives etc and in some cases for example like smoke scales utility or the plasma gain from the pigs it ends up being a massive benefit for a minor tradeoff when looking at it like that. I personally considered soulbeast to be one of the professions that still lacked a realistic trade off and this more or less forces them to have one be it late to the game so it i can see how players might take it as considerably unfair. Had this change happened in the patch that enforced other trade offs on other professions the impact of it might not have been as bad.

    However still i do get what you mean when it comes to long instances of combat such as fractals etc where some players for sure might be that tatical about when they swap pets and and merge etc. I think this change does need to happen though otherwise soulbeast ends up with more utility than intended in one mode where as it might not matter in the others.

    This also prevents pet selection from allowing one build chocie to be the be all end all "good against the majority" kind of thing and allows for more direct weaknesses that comes with the perks that soulbeast does offer. I think making it so that one build is only good against 2 or 3 other professions only and not so much for the rest is a good thing. IF a build current handles 5-6 or more professions of the 9 comfortably then it needs more weaknesses. But thats just my point of view. We shouldnt be able to build for every situation or even the majority of situations just a few of them combined on how you like to play.

  • Bealis.6023Bealis.6023 Member ✭✭
    edited February 6, 2020

    @Zexanima.7851 said:
    I view this differently. To me this draws the focus away from tactics and more onto strategy. A higher APM also locks out plays who, while they might know what to do, simply can't react fast enough. If you can't track your opponents movements then it's not very interactive gameplay. This won't change the way you have to remember moves, it'll be the more or less the same. You'll just not have to keep track of them as fast. Of course there needs to be a good balance because it is an action oriented video game. It shouldn't be even close to the same pace as a fighting game though, this is an RPG. Generally RPG's are more "chess" than they are "street fighter" and GW2 seems to try to be somewhere in the middle. I think it has been leaning too much to the more fast paced side with the plethora of boons and instant cast skills. I welcome this change.

    Oh, then we are on the same boat...I think? =) Since I meant I would rather increased cooldown time then some changes, but then again, its not much fun either when its overdone, not to mention thief and rev dont rely only on cooldown .)

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 6, 2020

    I think the active part means less gameplay from traits, like the 300 second cooldown on passive stances for Warrior for example.

    I rather choose death.

  • @Blocki.4931 said:
    I think the active part means less gameplay from traits, like the 300 second cooldown on passive stances for Warrior for example.

    Ill need to recheck the traits I had to overlook something C:...300 seconds? :o

    @ZDragon.3046 said:

    However still i do get what you mean when it comes to long instances of combat such as fractals etc where some players for sure might be that tatical about when they swap pets and and merge etc. I think this change does need to happen though otherwise soulbeast ends up with more utility than intended in one mode where as it might not matter in the others.

    Its true that i fixated too much on pve:) Possibly such a tradeoff must be same in all modes for the sake of the traits right?

  • ZDragon.3046ZDragon.3046 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Bealis.6023 said:

    @Blocki.4931 said:
    I think the active part means less gameplay from traits, like the 300 second cooldown on passive stances for Warrior for example.

    Ill need to recheck the traits I had to overlook something C:...300 seconds? :o

    @ZDragon.3046 said:

    However still i do get what you mean when it comes to long instances of combat such as fractals etc where some players for sure might be that tatical about when they swap pets and and merge etc. I think this change does need to happen though otherwise soulbeast ends up with more utility than intended in one mode where as it might not matter in the others.

    Its true that i fixated too much on pve:) Possibly such a tradeoff must be same in all modes for the sake of the traits right?

    I think that pest will still have value and since fusing now triggers pet swap related traits it might not be so bad depending on how those sync up and work with other traits it might be more fluid but who knows. Obviously it wont make up for an entirely second pet but it might help QoL in some ways overall with trait interactions.