Should the Specializations be expanded? — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Professions

Should the Specializations be expanded?

Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

This is a question I've been asking myself for quite a while and I'm interested in what the community's take on it would be. If you're just going to respond with "Anet will never do it because its too much work" or something similar, I'll have to ask you to not respond. This is more of a speculation post and I want to discuss the pros and cons of such an action and the general thoughts on the idea. As such, this isn't a request from the devs just something they can listen in on and take notes if they feel so inclined.

So I've been playing a lot of other RPGs lately and have been experiencing other systems such as Point allocation systems, leveling skill systems and skill tree systems. All of them have their pros and cons to them with GW2's system being the most clean and simple of them. GW2's Specializations demand that you take a Adept, master and grandmaster trait of each one which limits the players but also prevents them from making a mistake. I'm not going to suggest we change that as the pros of this system outweigh the cons in my head as I've thought about what it would be like if we tried something else and I came to the conclusion that it would only over complicate things when it really doesn't need to be. But what I did get from those systems was just how much fun I was having with the exact same skills I was using before but with slight variation to them that adjusts their general impact in the game. And this really got me thinking that perhaps we could look at GW2 and see if something similar could be implemented to prevent the stagnation of classes as well as open up more space for more niche builds.

Excuse me if I'm rambling. Would it be a bad idea to add new Adapt, Master and Grandmaster traits to each of the specializations? How would this impact the game? Could we possible take variations of traits in each spec and adjust them slightly while keeping the original? Anet said they want the Sagas to feel like expansions and I'd imagine traits have the lowest amount of effort required to implement when compared to Skills from elite specs or new weapons.

Yes they'd have to change the UI for the specializations, but That's not really a big problem. What do ya'll think? Is this something you'd like to see? Why or why not? (Also, I know the "No cuz balance reasons" and that's going to be an issue no matter what happens without without.)

Comments

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

    Would it be a bad idea to add new Adapt, Master and Grandmaster traits to each of the specializations?
    It wouldn't be bad per se, but it would make balance more volatile. Initially ANet came to the 3 options per tier to reduce the balance "hazard".

    How would this impact the game?
    Yep! Everything new they introduce impact the game. It would effectively be quite a huge load of powercreep (not necessarily in the sense of an increase of "power" but in an increase of tools for each profession).

    Could we possible take variations of traits in each spec and adjust them slightly while keeping the original?
    I think this would be difficult and that ANet would face a backlash from the players used to the "whole" traits that would end up splited.

    What do ya'll think?
    I can only talk for myself, but I think before all there is a need for ANet to work on the "trunk" of the core traitlines (the minor traits) so that they are coherent and offer an interesting foundation on which they could expand with the current traits, or more like you suggest. Right now some traitlines don't really have much more trait logic than: "that's a good thematical idea, let's put it here. Maybe they will enjoy it...". While ideally, it should be: "Ok, the traitline focus on [this] via the minor, let's give them the choice to expand on it via the majors!"

    So, in short, my answer is that there is a need to put some rigor into the traitline before thinking of expanding the variety of choice. The traitline are to rough and unrefined to support more traits without creating more chaos than necessary.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    My only annoyance with Traitlines right now is that they are becoming more and more boring(?) or one-dimensional.

    There is always :

    One traitline to support Profession Mechanic
    One traitline to support Condi
    One traitline to support Power
    Alternative one traitline to support healing
    One trait to support one utility type

    So in the end most builds end up with :
    The traitline that supports Profession Mechanic
    The traitline that supports their damage type
    An elite or a third Traitline which complements their damage type if they are playing Core.

    Kinda meh imo.
    But it's still functional because every now and then yu get funny builds which use underused traits/traitline and it gives a wow factor.

    The build construction is fairly shallow compared to GW1. You occasionally get weird builds but nothing so out there as discordway or "Save yourselves" paragons or 600 monk.

    Not saying we should be like GW1, but diversity would be nice.

  • otto.5684otto.5684 Member ✭✭✭✭

    We theoretically can add more major traits, so we have 4 options instead of 3. Would happen? Anet is way too lazy and uncreative.

  • Sigmoid.7082Sigmoid.7082 Member ✭✭✭✭

    They moved away from a system like this in preference of the one we have now.

    GW1 may have had a lot of skills but a lot of them were never used or superseded by a similar skills that was straight up better with the same effect.

    Some people want options for the sake of having options under the guise of increased diversity.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 23, 2020

    I think the weapon skills should be changed, instead. Some are absolute kitten - mostly single-handed weapons.

    This post contains my opinion.

  • Skotlex.7580Skotlex.7580 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    My only annoyance with Traitlines right now is that they are becoming more and more boring(?) or one-dimensional.

    There is always :

    One traitline to support Profession Mechanic
    One traitline to support Condi
    One traitline to support Power
    Alternative one traitline to support healing
    One trait to support one utility type

    Becoming? I'd argue this is how they were designed, a legacy from the days each trait line had associated stats to it.

    My issue with the current traitlines is that in some of my builds I take advantage of pretty much all tiers, whereas for some other builds, I have a whole lot of fluff that hardly helps my build, in order to get the one or two traits that I really want.

    For instance, I have a flamethrower condition support scrapper. firearms is the traitline for condition damage, as well as critical hits. The minors grant increased critical rate and more bleeding stacks (which are dependant on criticals). To make the most out of this traitline, I most heavily invest into precision, but I notice the damage increase is pretty small (like, no more than 5 stacks of bleeding), whereas ignoring those traits and just going trailblazer gives me more damage. So all the minors are trash for my specific condition build. The only way this traitline's synergy works is if I go full hybrid damage, but then my support ability is greatly diminished in group events where it counts (where random aoes down multiple players around me but I can survive to help the others get up).

    It's not that traits should be impactful to the point of powercreep, but a player shouldn't feel that half of their traitlines could as well not exist and one wouldn't notice.

  • Skotlex.7580Skotlex.7580 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    My only annoyance with Traitlines right now is that they are becoming more and more boring(?) or one-dimensional.

    There is always :

    One traitline to support Profession Mechanic
    One traitline to support Condi
    One traitline to support Power
    Alternative one traitline to support healing
    One trait to support one utility type

    Becoming? I'd argue this is how they were designed, a legacy from the days each trait line had associated stats to it.

    My issue with the current traitlines is that in some of my builds I take advantage of pretty much all tiers, whereas for some other builds, I have a whole lot of fluff that hardly helps my build, in order to get the one or two traits that I really want.

    For instance, I have a flamethrower condition support scrapper. firearms is the traitline for condition damage, as well as critical hits. The minors grant increased critical rate and more bleeding stacks (which are dependant on criticals). To make the most out of this traitline, I most heavily invest into precision, but I notice the damage increase is pretty small (like, no more than 5 stacks of bleeding), whereas ignoring those traits and just going trailblazer gives me more damage. So all the minors are trash for my specific condition build. The only way this traitline's synergy works is if I go full hybrid damage, but then my support ability is greatly diminished in group events where it counts (where random aoes down multiple players around me but I can survive to help the others get up).

    It's not that traits should be impactful to the point of powercreep, but a player shouldn't feel that half of their traitlines could as well not exist and one wouldn't notice.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Sigmoid.7082 said:
    They moved away from a system like this in preference of the one we have now.

    GW1 may have had a lot of skills but a lot of them were never used or superseded by a similar skills that was straight up better with the same effect.

    Some people want options for the sake of having options under the guise of increased diversity.

    GW1's system was solely skills with attributes that influence their respective skills. Attributes function nothing like Specializations though. Since you don't need to take something like fire magic in order to have your fire spells usable unlike in GW1. And I'm not suggest go back to the Attribute system. Its a solid system for GW1, not for GW2.

    I'm more looking at the idea of of traits being allowed to have more diverse impact on your build. Traits were supposed to fill the role of the build craft that we see in GW1, but its a shadow of its intention. And there is always an obvious choice for which trait you should choose for any given situation. There isn't the minor details that we see in GW1 with the skills or even in games like Diablo III(Not the best example, admittedly).

    GW1 in its prime could take players weeks to figure out the optimal builds and even then everything could be uprooted by new ideas using janky skills people just didn't think of. This doesn't happen near as frequently in GW2 as it did in GW1. It happens occasionally, but whole team comps could change over night because of one build difference. GW got the nickname of "Build wars" because of it and honestly it was some of the most exciting time I had playing a game outside of Magic: The gathering.

    Guild Wars 2 could achieve this through the traits system. Similar yet different enough traits that could afford to be more niche rather than having to be this check all boxes they seem to be today. Although I'm not suggesting that each new trait be hyper niche, it would be an option. A vast majority of traits are also Upgrades and with new options we could have side grades. This was actually planned to be the case during the Alpha of GW2. And its not like Arena net needs to drop 300 new traits into the game, that'd be ridiculous. Perhaps ever few months they could choose one specialization from each class and add 3 new ones to that. It doesn't have to be perfectly symmetrical all the time, they could take on the loads they're ready to take on. And If we get new elite specs they could either keep the elite specs all at their 3, 3, 3 or release the new elites with 3, 3, 3 and release new traits later.

    To me, the possibility is interesting. People frequently get upset when their traits are removed and replaced with something but Anet really doesn't need to replace them. They just do it to keep the illusion of uniformity which I feel holds the design space back.

    BUT! My opinion on this doesn't really matter all that much since this is more a contemplative post than a real suggestion.

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 23, 2020

    may be it should be merged ? no we have 2 elite spec.. may be merge it to one is best step
    too much classes and spec is not good.

    want solid balance ? - play chess.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    To be honest there are a number of traits atm that don't see as much use as some others and that's often due to the tradeoff not beong worth the sacrifice of a strong and popular trait.

    Adding more traits to that just doesn't seem to be the right move when others could simply be buffed to make them more appling and worth the choice.

    I think one of the best ways this could be done would be to have more traits directly upgrade certain skills much like Necromancers Feast of Corruption transforms into a more powerful Devouring Darkness skill if you take the trait Lingering Curse.

    This could be done with a number of skills to either upgrade them into new skills or give them additional abilities.
    One example would be a trait allowing you to throw the Ranger's greatsword again on the block if you took it.
    Or giving hundred blades the ability to deflect projectiles back to target for a few seconds.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:
    may be it should be merged ? no we have 2 elite spec.. may be merge it to one is best step
    too much classes and spec is not good.

    Highly, HIGHLY disagree. We're far too limited right now. There isn't even close to enough.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Teratus.2859 said:
    To be honest there are a number of traits atm that don't see as much use as some others and that's often due to the tradeoff not beong worth the sacrifice of a strong and popular trait.

    Adding more traits to that just doesn't seem to be the right move when others could simply be buffed to make them more appling and worth the choice.

    I think one of the best ways this could be done would be to have more traits directly upgrade certain skills much like Necromancers Feast of Corruption transforms into a more powerful Devouring Darkness skill if you take the trait Lingering Curse.

    This could be done with a number of skills to either upgrade them into new skills or give them additional abilities.
    One example would be a trait allowing you to throw the Ranger's greatsword again on the block if you took it.
    Or giving hundred blades the ability to deflect projectiles back to target for a few seconds.

    Actually one of the variations in my mind was an alternative to Lingering curse that changed how grasping dead functioned so it would be more similar to its alpha version and apply chill. But instead of replacing Lingering it could exist along side it or exist in a lower tier. Normally I'd be against a trait like this since its narrow use and we have such limited slots as it is but if anet didn't limit it to 3 I'd be in favor of these side grade traits.

  • How about new E-Specs that 'revamp' the weapon bar of an Iconic weapon from each class:

    Warrior gets a revamped sword or GS bar (as in not a choice by the player, but one of these chosen by Anet)
    Necro gets a revamped staff
    Ranger gets a revamped SB or LB
    Guardian gets a new Hammer bar
    etc...

    That would be interesting.

  • Kodama.6453Kodama.6453 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    How about new E-Specs that 'revamp' the weapon bar of an Iconic weapon from each class:

    Warrior gets a revamped sword or GS bar (as in not a choice by the player, but one of these chosen by Anet)
    Necro gets a revamped staff
    Ranger gets a revamped SB or LB
    Guardian gets a new Hammer bar
    etc...

    That would be interesting.

    Reworked rifle to give engineers a true long ranged DPS weapon pls. Thank you.

  • @Kodama.6453 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    How about new E-Specs that 'revamp' the weapon bar of an Iconic weapon from each class:

    Warrior gets a revamped sword or GS bar (as in not a choice by the player, but one of these chosen by Anet)
    Necro gets a revamped staff
    Ranger gets a revamped SB or LB
    Guardian gets a new Hammer bar
    etc...

    That would be interesting.

    Reworked rifle to give engineers a true long ranged DPS weapon pls. Thank you.

    Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. Granted it would be better for complete reworks on some weapons, but 'spaghetti code' might mean than an entire new E-Spec to toggle away from the spaghetti code could be an easier fix.

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Highly, HIGHLY disagree. We're far too limited right now. There isn't even close to enough.

    Limits is a ground. Time to time we have response remove 4 mode, or ALL stats from spvp, make only 3 stats variation on wvw and etc.
    Same whit traits, now most players can't predict what and who is on opposite side.

    By merging two current spec to one we will remove some unpredictable value and do right step.

    want solid balance ? - play chess.

  • Dirame.8521Dirame.8521 Member ✭✭✭

    I personally think this idea has legs. The only challenge they have is in building traits that are useful across the board not just in one game mode (not just pvp).

    I like the idea of traits that change the way certain skills function. More traits like that make a lot of sense.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    Highly, HIGHLY disagree. We're far too limited right now. There isn't even close to enough.

    Limits is a ground. Time to time we have response remove 4 mode, or ALL stats from spvp, make only 3 stats variation on wvw and etc.
    Same whit traits, now most players can't predict what and who is on opposite side.

    By merging two current spec to one we will remove some unpredictable value and do right step.

    Diversity is the spice of life. Less leads to stagnation. Which GW2 is already stagnating as a whole because of several factors. Diversity is one of them.

  • DeceiverX.8361DeceiverX.8361 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited February 29, 2020

    @Svarty.8019 said:
    I think the weapon skills should be changed, instead. Some are absolute kitten - mostly single-handed weapons.

    This is more the problem than anything.

    Diversity is generally caused by massive disparities in the weapon skills more often than not. In the PvP modes, you're not seeing MH dagger necromancers, D/D thieves, OH sword mesmers, mace guardian builds, MH/OH sword warriors, D/D eles, etc. etc. because the weapons just suck and have little to no advantages to other combinations, especially in respects to trait and elite spec interactions, even if they're fun to play in isolation.

    PvE is another matter because the only thing that actually matters there is DPS and/or the mathematical optima for a given role. It's a math problem and nothing but a math problem, and there will always be a "right answer" so long as there are available options and so long as the PvE community is deadset on fast/easy clears or bosses that have predictable mechanics.

    As for ANet adding more complexity to things... no thanks. If anything, they need to take a step back and simplify it down. The PvP experiences aren't fun because they're unable to handle the complexity they've added despite its pretty obvious nature and design flaws they've introduced, which is worrying when thinking about asking for more.

    You sure that Sniper idea is as good as you thought it was gonna be?
    Because I think my original idea is better.

  • MyPuppy.8970MyPuppy.8970 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I wish we could dual class, with the risk of losing efficiency (unusable traits and interactions) over original class mechanic, just for the sake of fun.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @MyPuppy.8970 said:
    I wish we could dual class, with the risk of losing efficiency (unusable traits and interactions) over original class mechanic, just for the sake of fun.

    I do miss crossclassing from GW1. Although there are some redundancies between the classes in terms of traits. A lot of classes have the "Deal 20% more damage to foes below 50% health". I hate that trait, but its really effective...

    But it would be fun gaining access to some of the other weapon skills.

  • MyPuppy.8970MyPuppy.8970 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @MyPuppy.8970 said:
    I wish we could dual class, with the risk of losing efficiency (unusable traits and interactions) over original class mechanic, just for the sake of fun.

    I do miss crossclassing from GW1. Although there are some redundancies between the classes in terms of traits. A lot of classes have the "Deal 20% more damage to foes below 50% health". I hate that trait, but its really effective...

    But it would be fun gaining access to some of the other weapon skills.

    I can really picture an Ele/War without redundancies but synergies.

  • Moradorin.6217Moradorin.6217 Member ✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:
    This is a question I've been asking myself for quite a while and I'm interested in what the community's take on it would be. If you're just going to respond with "Anet will never do it because its too much work" or something similar, I'll have to ask you to not respond. This is more of a speculation post and I want to discuss the pros and cons of such an action and the general thoughts on the idea. As such, this isn't a request from the devs just something they can listen in on and take notes if they feel so inclined.

    So I've been playing a lot of other RPGs lately and have been experiencing other systems such as Point allocation systems, leveling skill systems and skill tree systems. All of them have their pros and cons to them with GW2's system being the most clean and simple of them. GW2's Specializations demand that you take a Adept, master and grandmaster trait of each one which limits the players but also prevents them from making a mistake. I'm not going to suggest we change that as the pros of this system outweigh the cons in my head as I've thought about what it would be like if we tried something else and I came to the conclusion that it would only over complicate things when it really doesn't need to be. But what I did get from those systems was just how much fun I was having with the exact same skills I was using before but with slight variation to them that adjusts their general impact in the game. And this really got me thinking that perhaps we could look at GW2 and see if something similar could be implemented to prevent the stagnation of classes as well as open up more space for more niche builds.

    Excuse me if I'm rambling. Would it be a bad idea to add new Adapt, Master and Grandmaster traits to each of the specializations? How would this impact the game? Could we possible take variations of traits in each spec and adjust them slightly while keeping the original? Anet said they want the Sagas to feel like expansions and I'd imagine traits have the lowest amount of effort required to implement when compared to Skills from elite specs or new weapons.

    Yes they'd have to change the UI for the specializations, but That's not really a big problem. What do ya'll think? Is this something you'd like to see? Why or why not? (Also, I know the "No cuz balance reasons" and that's going to be an issue no matter what happens without without.)

    At this point I would have to say no to new Especs. At present with the changes to current especs I feel that the continuation of what has now been done to Mesmer and now to a lesser extent to ranger especs so far suggest that more especs are a bad investment for the players. What I mean is, after investing significant time into playing mesmer only to have the class die due to new especs Im inclined to suggest I would prefer to see the same thing that has been done to mesmer done to every class in the game to the point that core is the only good, viable option for every class. That especs should just go away because Anet cannot properly manage them. Granted I love playing certain Especs, BUT the fact is Anet cannot manage to avoid destroying things. So from a player time investment standpoint alone I would argue we are all better off in a gw2 in which especs are gone and everyone is stuck on core. Maybe then anet can get balance right and stop turning classes upsidedown and backwards like they did to mesmer.

    So no I dont want to see new especs because I have no faith in Anet's ability to not screw everything they do up!

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Moradorin.6217 said:

    @Lily.1935 said:
    This is a question I've been asking myself for quite a while and I'm interested in what the community's take on it would be. If you're just going to respond with "Anet will never do it because its too much work" or something similar, I'll have to ask you to not respond. This is more of a speculation post and I want to discuss the pros and cons of such an action and the general thoughts on the idea. As such, this isn't a request from the devs just something they can listen in on and take notes if they feel so inclined.

    So I've been playing a lot of other RPGs lately and have been experiencing other systems such as Point allocation systems, leveling skill systems and skill tree systems. All of them have their pros and cons to them with GW2's system being the most clean and simple of them. GW2's Specializations demand that you take a Adept, master and grandmaster trait of each one which limits the players but also prevents them from making a mistake. I'm not going to suggest we change that as the pros of this system outweigh the cons in my head as I've thought about what it would be like if we tried something else and I came to the conclusion that it would only over complicate things when it really doesn't need to be. But what I did get from those systems was just how much fun I was having with the exact same skills I was using before but with slight variation to them that adjusts their general impact in the game. And this really got me thinking that perhaps we could look at GW2 and see if something similar could be implemented to prevent the stagnation of classes as well as open up more space for more niche builds.

    Excuse me if I'm rambling. Would it be a bad idea to add new Adapt, Master and Grandmaster traits to each of the specializations? How would this impact the game? Could we possible take variations of traits in each spec and adjust them slightly while keeping the original? Anet said they want the Sagas to feel like expansions and I'd imagine traits have the lowest amount of effort required to implement when compared to Skills from elite specs or new weapons.

    Yes they'd have to change the UI for the specializations, but That's not really a big problem. What do ya'll think? Is this something you'd like to see? Why or why not? (Also, I know the "No cuz balance reasons" and that's going to be an issue no matter what happens without without.)

    At this point I would have to say no to new Especs. At present with the changes to current especs I feel that the continuation of what has now been done to Mesmer and now to a lesser extent to ranger especs so far suggest that more especs are a bad investment for the players. What I mean is, after investing significant time into playing mesmer only to have the class die due to new especs Im inclined to suggest I would prefer to see the same thing that has been done to mesmer done to every class in the game to the point that core is the only good, viable option for every class. That especs should just go away because Anet cannot properly manage them. Granted I love playing certain Especs, BUT the fact is Anet cannot manage to avoid destroying things. So from a player time investment standpoint alone I would argue we are all better off in a gw2 in which especs are gone and everyone is stuck on core. Maybe then anet can get balance right and stop turning classes upsidedown and backwards like they did to mesmer.

    So no I dont want to see new especs because I have no faith in Anet's ability to not screw everything they do up!

    The thing is that let's take necromancer in this example. Core necromancer is absolutely not fun for me to play. And its Especs are so wildly different from the core that their play pattern often requires different muscle memory. It might be easy for you to say remove them when the member's core mechanic is actually really good while other classes like necromancer and ranger tend to have extremely linear and poorly implemented mechanics.

    Removal of the elite specs also wouldn't make balance better. It would just make the game more stale. Arena net doesn't add new skills, traits or classes without elite specs and if they did it would likely be an extremely slow crawl to add new options. Fatigue with the game is already setting in for long time fans such as myself and the lack of this horizontal progression for what we do 90% of the time has lead to extremely predictable play patterns. Guild wars 2 doesn't have endless vertical progression like other MMOs like WoW so it absolutely needs this horizontal progression to compensate for that lack.

    If we remove that horizontal progression from the game you hasten its inevitable death. This is a fact. Variety is the spice of life. And this applies to MMOs.

    Another thing is, an unbalanced game doesn't mean it's not fun. Take a look at Magic: The gathering. They have a format called Commander and it is the most broken game I have ever played. It's got thousands of different cards compared to our handful of skills and it is busted beyond fixing. And it is the most popular format for that game in its history. Just because something is unbalanced does not mean it is not enjoyable.

    With our hyper linear options now unbalance seems just awful, but that's because the pool of potential options so very limited and so predictable when its unbalanced there isn't a counter meta to break the mold and excite people. We don't have the process of discovery. We don't have meta upsets like we do in games like GW1 or MTG or even smash bros. We have a fixed meta until a balance patch comes out. The process of discovery isn't there. Eventually all metas will be solved. That's true. However the fewer options you give to players the quicker this happens. If you want a perfectly balanced game the original street fighter. It's not an exciting game to spectate and it's not very popular especially compared to its sequels which expanded the roster greatly.

    Unbalance isn't the problem. More options isn't a bad thing. It is harder to find that right balance with more of everything. But the meta shifts and adding of new skills, traits and elite specs excites and entertains people. Without that we have a stagnant game. Which gw2 is stagnant.

  • Unbalance isn't the problem. More options isn't a bad thing. It is harder to find that right balance with more of everything. But the meta shifts and adding of new skills, traits and elite specs excites and entertains people. Without that we have a stagnant game. Which gw2 is stagnant.

    This. It’s going to be tricky adding things without causing another powercreep.

  • Svarty.8019Svarty.8019 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 13, 2020

    Here comes Path of Cantha, expect accretion and another level if crazy OP nonsense!

    This post contains my opinion.

  • Lan Deathrider.5910Lan Deathrider.5910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Mmm more power creep.... Just give warrior pistols this time.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Mmm more power creep.... Just give warrior pistols this time.

    Not a warrior player myself. Got like 50 hours in warrior or something low like that. But what about staff? Or shortbow?

  • Lan Deathrider.5910Lan Deathrider.5910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lily.1935 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:
    Mmm more power creep.... Just give warrior pistols this time.

    Not a warrior player myself. Got like 50 hours in warrior or something low like that. But what about staff? Or shortbow?

    Well, Warrior is really lacking in a good range power option, and in a good support spec that isn't lazy banners, so pistol/pistol with some sort of support built in would be awesome. Like a field commander sitting in the mid line barking orders and popping shots off with pistols.

  • Yasai.3549Yasai.3549 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

    Well, Warrior is really lacking in a good range power option, and in a good support spec that isn't lazy banners, so pistol/pistol with some sort of support built in would be awesome. Like a field commander sitting in the mid line barking orders and popping shots off with pistols.

    Pistol would be a great addition.

    Rifle is a pretty strong weapon set.
    The reason Warrior can't use Rifle well is because it has 0 synergy with any of Warrior's other aspects and heavily disrupts flow the moment yu swap to Rifle.

    Pistol would be perfect to complement Rifle for full ranged combat.

    If I play a stupid build, I deserve to die.
    If I beat people on a stupid build, I deserve to get away with it.

  • Lan Deathrider.5910Lan Deathrider.5910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Yasai.3549 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

    Well, Warrior is really lacking in a good range power option, and in a good support spec that isn't lazy banners, so pistol/pistol with some sort of support built in would be awesome. Like a field commander sitting in the mid line barking orders and popping shots off with pistols.

    Pistol would be a great addition.

    Rifle is a pretty strong weapon set.
    The reason Warrior can't use Rifle well is because it has 0 synergy with any of Warrior's other aspects and heavily disrupts flow the moment yu swap to Rifle.

    Pistol would be perfect to complement Rifle for full ranged combat.

    >
    Rifle is in a better spot now, but still needs work. If they didn't nerf it's damage along with everything else it would be soilid.

  • Taril.8619Taril.8619 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'd love to see more customization.

    More trait choices, up to 4 per tier (With a rebalance of many lacklustre traits... Sucks picking a specialization purely for 1 GM Trait with the rest of the spec being garbo and that 1 trait being better than other specs garbo)

    Additional options for the current 3 bridge traits per spec. Some can be meh depending on spec and playstyle and there's currently no options available for them...

    Heck, additional skills for existing weapons too! While it would be an enormous task, it would be nice to have options for alternate skills for weapon sets. Since sometimes you have skills that are mediocre for the content you're doing (For example, Ranger LB Skill 4 in PvE... I can push my enemies out of my skill 5? wew so stronk!) or seem awkward in the weapon archetype (For example, D/D Feef has its AoE and Ranged options as Condi skills, but literally the entire rest of the weapon set is hyper tuned towards Power... In fact, Feef seems to completely lack any Power based AoE in its core weapons only having Daredevil's Staff filling that particular role)

    Cat: Meow.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited April 18, 2020

    @Yasai.3549 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

    Well, Warrior is really lacking in a good range power option, and in a good support spec that isn't lazy banners, so pistol/pistol with some sort of support built in would be awesome. Like a field commander sitting in the mid line barking orders and popping shots off with pistols.

    Pistol would be a great addition.

    Rifle is a pretty strong weapon set.
    The reason Warrior can't use Rifle well is because it has 0 synergy with any of Warrior's other aspects and heavily disrupts flow the moment yu swap to Rifle.

    Pistol would be perfect to complement Rifle for full ranged combat.

    I agree, I feel the same problem exists with Longbow as well which is disappointing because that leaves Warrior with very subpar range play capability.
    If all Rifle skills pierced then it wouldn't be so bad but atm it's a mediocre weapon, same for Longbow although longbow is slightly better with Crackshot adding burn to the auto.

  • Lan Deathrider.5910Lan Deathrider.5910 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Teratus.2859 said:

    @Yasai.3549 said:

    @Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

    Well, Warrior is really lacking in a good range power option, and in a good support spec that isn't lazy banners, so pistol/pistol with some sort of support built in would be awesome. Like a field commander sitting in the mid line barking orders and popping shots off with pistols.

    Pistol would be a great addition.

    Rifle is a pretty strong weapon set.
    The reason Warrior can't use Rifle well is because it has 0 synergy with any of Warrior's other aspects and heavily disrupts flow the moment yu swap to Rifle.

    Pistol would be perfect to complement Rifle for full ranged combat.

    I agree, I feel the same problem exists with Longbow as well which is disappointing because that leaves Warrior with very subpar range play capability.
    If all Rifle skills pierced then it wouldn't be so bad but atm it's a mediocre weapon, same for Longbow although longbow is slightly better with Crackshot adding burn to the auto.

    Crack shot used to make them all pierce. It was much better then.

  • RabbitUp.8294RabbitUp.8294 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Traits are supposed to complement your build, they are not to blame for lack of build depth. I think the issue is with the active portion, the skill themselves. There are weapons that are left to collect dust for years, and the relics of past design that still haunt the current skill system, mainly the concept of "utility" skills taken too literally (warrior is perhaps the worst offender, their core utilities have no offensive skills - I guess Bull's Rush counts for pve only), and elite skills designed like MOBA elite skills with enormous cooldowns. So, that leaves weapons having to carry most of the weight of active combat, and as said above, when specific weapon options are left unchanged, that only reduces build options.

    For what it's worth, I feel like anet are doing a better job with trait design these days, there have been a lot more cases where a newly-introduced trait has made me want to try a new build, and a lot more competing traits making for tougher choices, while before there were a lot of traitlines with 1 "real" major in each category and 2 fillers.

  • Teratus.2859Teratus.2859 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @RabbitUp.8294 said:
    Traits are supposed to complement your build, they are not to blame for lack of build depth. I think the issue is with the active portion, the skill themselves. There are weapons that are left to collect dust for years, and the relics of past design that still haunt the current skill system, mainly the concept of "utility" skills taken too literally (warrior is perhaps the worst offender, their core utilities have no offensive skills - I guess Bull's Rush counts for pve only), and elite skills designed like MOBA elite skills with enormous cooldowns. So, that leaves weapons having to carry most of the weight of active combat, and as said above, when specific weapon options are left unchanged, that only reduces build options.

    For what it's worth, I feel like anet are doing a better job with trait design these days, there have been a lot more cases where a newly-introduced trait has made me want to try a new build, and a lot more competing traits making for tougher choices, while before there were a lot of traitlines with 1 "real" major in each category and 2 fillers.

    I never actually noticed that before, you are correct.. outside of the Physical skills almost all Warrior core Utility's focus on buffing the Warrior, it's allies or enhancing stats in some ways.
    With exception to On My Mark and Fear Me which are enemy debuffs.

  • Lily.1935Lily.1935 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Old post of mine necroed.

    I do enjoy this idea quite a bit as there is so much space in the core spec designs. As a necromancer player I currently dislike the fact that Death magic has 3 dedicated minion traits but if there were far more options in all trait lines and other skill types and weapons had multiple traits that changed the way they played instead of always strict upgrades I'd be far more on board with it.

  • VocalThought.9835VocalThought.9835 Member ✭✭✭

    @Yasai.3549 said:
    My only annoyance with Traitlines right now is that they are becoming more and more boring(?) or one-dimensional.

    There is always :

    One traitline to support Profession Mechanic
    One traitline to support Condi
    One traitline to support Power
    Alternative one traitline to support healing
    One trait to support one utility type

    So in the end most builds end up with :
    The traitline that supports Profession Mechanic
    The traitline that supports their damage type
    An elite or a third Traitline which complements their damage type if they are playing Core.

    Kinda meh imo.
    But it's still functional because every now and then yu get funny builds which use underused traits/traitline and it gives a wow factor.

    That's always been the case. Even when it wasn't called Specializations, they severed the same function. I think the Specializations clean things up.

    I also realized, with the respect to the original post, elites serve the purpose of adding to existing Specializations. You can see that some Specializations benefit more some the elites than another. So you can technically say, that what they're trying to do. Add to the Specializations. It's not a coincidence that Ranger's Nature Magic benefits more from Druid than Beast Mastery, or Thieves' Critical Strikes with Deadeye, than Acrobatics.