The Fundamental Problem with GW2

[Einlanzer.1627]

This isn't a complaint about something new - it's something that's been an issue from day one and, IMO, is likely a major reason why the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives.

This is it in a nutshell: Class design more closely mirrors an on-rails RPG experience while overall game design more closely mirrors a sandbox RPG experience.

I've long felt they over-compensated for "too much imbalance" in GW1 by over-engineering classes in GW2 when the game isn't really designed with that in mind - utilizing an end-game of horizontal growth and fashion wars. While everyone seems to love elite specs (probably just because they've been to date the only significant offering for class expansions), my opinion is this was conceptually the wrong way to tackle ongoing class development - it maintained and even reinforced the on-rails approach while the game was simultaneously moving in even more of a "do whatever you want!" direction. This is a bad dichotomy. A sandbox RPG experience that focuses on horizontal growth needs to unshackle these kinds of constraints and allow players to experiment in all kinds of ways. This is a big part of the reason why, in my view, Path of Exile ended up spiking in popularity after Diablo 3 was sort of a letdown.

So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that it's time for a system refresh - can the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much broader mechanism to continue expanding classes. There are really all kinds of ways they could do this to expanding weapon types, expanding weapon skills within weapon types, having loadout packages that resemble elite specs but are more balanced with core abilities so they can be mixed-and-matched, and allowing players to level multiple classes on the same toon.

[KeoLegend.5132]

Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

[Randulf.7614]

This isn't really the sort of decision you make 7 years into a game with thousands of players fully invested in their characters.

I like the system as it is and find it works just fine, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want to see a major overhaul like this at such a stage of the games life.

@KeoLegend.5132 said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

I agree with this

[KeoLegend.5132]

@Randulf.7614 said:This isn't really the sort of decision you make 7 years into a game with thousands of players fully invested in their characters.

I like the system as it is and find it works just fine, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want to see a major overhaul like this at such a stage of the games life.

@KeoLegend.5132 said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

I agree with this

Yep, exactly!. What ppl need to see is that everytime something new appears, something else gets irrelevant.If a new class or elite spec is released and is weaker or just the same as the current, nobody gives a damm about getting itIf a new class or elite spec is released and is stronger than the current, everyone needs to get it and guess what, millions of posts in the forums about how unbalanced they are, about how dead the other specs are, etc. etc.

The issue is that ppl want to play the meta and thats it. Im one of the few that chooses a class and a spec for their appeal to my tastes and character, not if its meta or not. And we already have 27 different classes in the game. If you can't find one that appeals to you, well. Go play Albion because it doesnt have classes, maybe thats the type of game for you.

Thats why balancing what we have is the best thing ever. Instead of making old content DIE with the constant release of new ones, work on making everything relevant and then you have a sandbox that everyone will love to play differently.

Check the example of a GREAT game that just died because of greedy and urge to release new content: NEVERWINTER ONLINE. Anybody that played from mod 1 to 3 will tell how nice that game was. And then, they are in mod 16 or 17 by now.... nobody cares, game is pretty much dead. I dont want that to happen with GW2. Oldschool Runescape is the example of a game done right. GW2 should be more like Runescape and less than Neverwinter.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@KeoLegend.5132 said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Randulf.7614 said:This isn't really the sort of decision you make 7 years into a game with thousands of players fully invested in their characters.

I like the system as it is and find it works just fine, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want to see a major overhaul like this at such a stage of the games life.

@"KeoLegend.5132" said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

I agree with this

The "overhaul" I'm suggesting is not as significant as you seem to think it is. I don't think existing options need to be removed, rather, the system should be reworked to be more flexible.

[Astralporing.1957]

@"Einlanzer.1627" said:So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us too much of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

(in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Einlanzer.1627" said:So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us

too much

of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

(in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things. The reason you see such a large gap between average and top players has little to do with class design and everything to do with combat mechanics and the various algorithms between damage, defense, boons, etc. Put simply, there's not enough rubber banding in the way the mechanics work. This isn't a class problem, it's an overall system problem.

[Randulf.7614]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@"Einlanzer.1627" said:So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us

too much

of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

(in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

Good analysis

[Randulf.7614]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Randulf.7614 said:This isn't really the sort of decision you make 7 years into a game with thousands of players fully invested in their characters.

I like the system as it is and find it works just fine, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't want to see a major overhaul like this at such a stage of the games life.

@"KeoLegend.5132" said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

I agree with this

The "overhaul" I'm suggesting is not as significant as you seem to think it is. I don't think existing options need to be removed, rather, the system should be reworked to be more flexible.

Dropping the elite system is significant regardless as to whether it is merged into the core classes or not. You are basically starting from scratch and increasing balance problems as they start afresh. The Elite system is something I think has been a great boon to the game - it allows a wide customisation, but at the expense of sacrifice in some areas. Entreprenering players will adapt the lite specs to all sorts of cool things outside of the metas as well.

[Genesis.5169]

The top deficiency between average and good players is skill, pvp is not pve stop trying to equate skill with builds. When you get your ass handed to you in pvp its a player behind the PC not a computer.

This is the fundamental problem with GW2 Arenanet has been balancing the game around you people.Pvp is unfair its supposed to be you make up the unfairness with skill and numbers the more you try to make PvP "fair" the more you alienate the people who learned to play.

Sports in the NBA just have a clear set of rules to not break (balance) and goals to attain (game mode) all other circumstances should be left to the player this includes builds team composition and partying.

[maddoctor.2738]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us

too much

of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

(in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.

And that's the fundamental problem with your suggestion. Balance and class design go hand in hand. More choice/variety leads to less choice/variety

[Einlanzer.1627]

@maddoctor.2738 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:So what does Anet really need to do here? My view is that they should rework the system - drop the notion of "elite specs" and go with a much more free-form approach to class development, potentially even allowing players to level different classes on the same toon. Pull existing toolkits from elite specs into the core class and continue building it from there. Add new weapon types including new weapon skills for existing weapon sets so that players can customize their weapon skills more than they can today.One thing you're not seeing is that the freeform approach to builds is one of the two main reasons behind the massive effieiency differences between top and average players (with second reason being the action-based combat). The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.

Yes, for the people that like this kind of stuff, it's a lot of fun. It is however an absolute tragedy for everyone else.

In retrospect, if anything, Anet gave us

too much

of a freedom to pick our builds, and they haven't been able to dig out of that hole ever since.

(in fact, your 7 years of fighting on forums against what you perceived as imbalance between power and condi, or offensive vs defensive stats is an indirect consequence of this very thing - too much freedom)

I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.

And that's the fundamental problem with your suggestion. Balance and class design go hand in hand. More choice/variety leads to less choice/variety

No, they don't. They overlap to some extent, but they are fundamentally different things. As an example, how the various attributes work to set things like damage floors and ceilings, and how boons create additive or multiplicative effects of that, is something that is in no way directly tied to specific classes and therefore has little to do with class design, which is largely conceptual in comparison. Yes, it helps to inform class design, but, fundamentally, the game mechanics are separate.

[kharmin.7683]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"KeoLegend.5132" said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

[ShadowGryphon.6257]

@"Astralporing.1957" said:

The more choices you give to the players, the more just plain bad combinations you end up with. The harder to see which combinations could be better. And the more chances of something slipping by devs, and something truly OP emerging.I beg to differ. As someone who played GW1 I can attest to the fact that allowing a more "free-form" set up and greater skill/build choices did not cause the problem you suggest. in fact, it was rather easy to find/make effective builds and share them.What the OP suggests would be interesting but I doubt GW2 is able to offer that at this point.To be honest, I was never enamored of locking skills to weapons as I felt it was rather limiting in scope. However as a, ridiculously, long time fan of Anet and player of GW as a whole I make do and enjoy the game.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"KeoLegend.5132" said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

I don't really need to.

[kharmin.7683]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"KeoLegend.5132" said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

I don't really need to.

Then you're only arguing hyperbole.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.The old, pre-elite spec design let you combine anything with anything, giving you a multitude of choices. Adding new things in that design increases the complexity with each addition, until you reach the point when noone can really control it anymore. Balancing such a system gets exponentially difficult with the number of options you have.

(with 5 traitlines, 3 traitline slots, 3 choices per slot, each with 3 possible options, you end up with 196830 combinations)

The new design limits that however - you can't combine two elite specs together, you can't use elite spec weapons with core buidls or other elite specs. Moreover, since the elite specs ar most of the time superior to core builds, they are actually culling a lot of options you had before - there's no need to check for all possible combinations of 3 core traitlines, for example, if you know that the last of the three traitlines picked will be an elite spec one. That makes things somewhat easier. It's still a mess, though.

(adding two elite traitlines to the mix, and assuming we will be using them, even though the total number of traitlines jumped from 5 to 7, we only end up with twice the number of combinations - 393660. If we just added two normal traitlines, the total would be at 688905 combinations.

Now, imagine how easier to balance it would be if you had only one traitline slot, with 5 (or 7) traitlines to pick from. 135 (or 189) combinations instead of 196830, 393660 or 688905.

And that's only when considering traitlines alone. All that gets multiplied by the amount of choices we need to make for weapons, armor, runes, skills...

In the end, if you end up with thousands of choices, there's no way they will all end up being equal. The more choices, the greater disparity between top, average and bottom. The more choices, the harder to balance all of them, and the harder to keep making sure some will not end up gamebreaking (especially in a way that may not be fun for anyone) or completely useless.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"KeoLegend.5132" said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

I don't really need to.

Then you're only arguing hyperbole.

Except that 9 in 10 of the people that I know bought the game at launch dropped it within 6 months and then never picked it up again, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:I don't really see any tangible connection between the two things you're trying to connect. Balance vs class design are really two different things.The old, pre-elite spec design let you combine anything with anything, giving you a multitude of choices. Adding new things in that design increases the complexity with each addition, until you reach the point when noone can really control it anymore. Balancing such a system gets exponentially difficult with the number of options you have.

(with 5 traitlines, 3 traitline slots, 3 choices per slot, each with 3 possible options, you end up with 196830 combinations)

The new design limits that however - you can't combine two elite specs together, you can't use elite spec weapons with core buidls or other elite specs. Moreover, since the elite specs ar most of the time superior to core builds, they are actually culling a lot of options you had before - there's no need to check for all possible combinations of 3 core traitlines, for example, if you know that the last of the three traitlines picked will be an elite spec one. That makes things somewhat easier. It's still a mess, though.

(adding two elite traitlines to the mix, and assuming we will be using them, even though the total number of traitlines jumped from 5 to 7, we only end up with twice the number of combinations - 393660. If we just added two

normal

traitlines, the total would be at 688905 combinations.

Now, imagine how easier to balance it would be if you had only

one

traitline slot, with 5 (or 7) traitlines to pick from.

135 (or 189)

combinations instead of 196830, 393660 or 688905.

And that's only when considering traitlines alone. All that gets multiplied by the amount of choices we need to make for weapons, armor, runes, skills...

In the end, if you end up with thousands of choices, there's no way they will all end up being equal. The more choices, the greater disparity between top, average and bottom. The more choices, the harder to balance all of them, and the harder to keep making sure some will not end up gamebreaking (especially in a way that may not be fun for anyone) or completely useless.

Again, the balance issues you and I commonly talk about revolve around combat mechanics that are largely independent of class design. Class design is basically used to fine tune them.

[Astralporing.1957]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.That part is definitely true. The game does have 11 million accounts, but i would be surprised if there was even a million (or half a million) of people still playing it. You definitely would need some data to support the thesis that even a significant portion of all those people that left did so due to the problem you outlined.In the meantime, i wonder, how many players left due to the bad balance the freeform build system caused, and how those two groups of players would compare.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Again, the balance issues you and I commonly talk about revolve around combat mechanics that are largely independent of class design. Class design is basically used to fine tune them.A lot of stuff we've discussed in the past was strongly tied to the freeform building associated with gear (and multitude of stat sets existing), for example. Which, true, is not part of a class design, but is still very relevant to what we're discussing now, in this very thread.

Although, in reality, the ability to pick any stat set you want, instead of having to pick from a limited number of class gear sets, can definitely be seen as part of class design. Most other MMORPGs do not give you as much freedom in that regard as GW2 does.

[ShadowGryphon.6257]

@"Einlanzer.1627" said:Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

Actually it's not "intuitive". You're using anecdotes as proof.To provide hard evidence to support you assertion isn't a ridiculous request because it's up to you to prove your point, not us.Have people left the game? sure it's not uncommon and happens to all games but to say "the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives." based solely on 9 out 10 people you know and few others you've spoken with is hardly a solid foundation for your assertion.So yes, hyperbole is an apt description.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@Astralporing.1957 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.That part is definitely true. The game does have 11 million accounts, but i would be surprised if there was even a million (or

half

a million) of people still playing it. You definitely would need some data to support the thesis that even a significant portion of all those people that left did so due to the problem you outlined.In the meantime, i wonder, how many players left due to the bad balance the freeform build system caused, and how those two groups of players would compare.

@Einlanzer.1627 said:Again, the balance issues you and I commonly talk about revolve around combat mechanics that are largely independent of class design. Class design is basically used to fine tune them.A lot of stuff we've discussed in the past was strongly tied to the freeform building associated with gear (and multitude of stat sets existing), for example. Which, true, is not part of a class design, but is still part of the stuff you are talking in this thread.

I'm not suggesting it's the only reason people left ( I doubt many of them would even be able to drum up a specific reason or list of reasons), but I definitely think this dichotomy contributed heavily to a general sense of confusion or a feeling that something was off - the class design was building toward an end game similar to WoW, but there is no end-game similar to WoW. Either the world needed to be more linear and contained, or the class design needed to be less so.

[Einlanzer.1627]

@ShadowGryphon.6257 said:

@"Einlanzer.1627" said:Except that 9 in 10 of the people I know bought the game at launch dropped it and never picked it up again within 6 months, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

Actually it's not "intuitive". You're using anecdotes as proof.To provide hard evidence to support you assertion isn't a ridiculous request because it's up to you to prove your point, not us.Have people left the game? sure it's not uncommon and happens to all games but to say "the game struggles to retain players despite its many positives." based solely on 9 out 10 people you know and few others you've spoken with is hardly a solid foundation for your assertion.So yes, hyperbole is an apt description.

Only if you're living with your eyes closed and fingers in your ears.

[Pirogen.9561]

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@kharmin.7683 said:

@Einlanzer.1627 said:

@"KeoLegend.5132" said:Nah. I think is fine as it is and the customization it gives. Not too complex and not too insignificant.

Of course you do, which is why you play the game now. The vast majority of the game's players over the years have not stuck with it - my argument is this is a big part of the reason why.

Please cite your statistical evidence to support your claim of the "vast majority" of the game's players no longer sticking with the game.

I don't really need to.

Then you're only arguing hyperbole.

Except that 9 in 10 of the people that I know bought the game at launch dropped it within 6 months and then never picked it up again, and I've discussed this with enough people to know it isn't just me. I mean it's quite intuitive, really.

"droped within 6 months" is for any given game. Its not GW2 specific. Any and all games.

There are 3 phases:

1. if game does not "grab" you with first 1 hour, you leave.
2. you are past phase 1, you play for an average of 6 months
3. you you really, really like that game and you stick for longer then 6 month. Can be even forever.

Most don't get past phase 1, download, try for a couple of minutes, then uninstall. Of those that don't uninstall on day 1, 9 out of 10 wont play for much longer then 6 months.

You are not wrong with "6 month". But you are wrong with "it happens because of " and if we fix , will be in heaven.

Thing is that most people just get bored and look for something else.

By the way, expansions can bring those 9 ot of 10 people back. Big pack of new stuff. For like 3 to 6 month.