Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Should the Specializations be expanded?


Lily.1935

Recommended Posts

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 MechanicOne traitline to support CondiOne traitline to support PowerAlternative one traitline to support healingOne trait to support one utility type

So in the end most builds end up with :The traitline that supports Profession MechanicThe traitline that supports their damage typeAn 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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 MechanicOne traitline to support CondiOne traitline to support PowerAlternative one traitline to support healingOne trait to support one utility type

So in the end most builds end up with :The traitline that supports Profession MechanicThe traitline that supports their damage typeAn 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 MechanicOne traitline to support CondiOne traitline to support PowerAlternative one traitline to support healingOne 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 MechanicOne traitline to support CondiOne traitline to support PowerAlternative one traitline to support healingOne 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 staffRanger gets a revamped SB or LBGuardian gets a new Hammer baretc...

That would be interesting.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 staffRanger gets a revamped SB or LBGuardian gets a new Hammer baretc...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...