Yes or No! ANET should increase the number of specialization you can choose. (Elite + 3) — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Yes or No! ANET should increase the number of specialization you can choose. (Elite + 3)

Yes or No! ANET should increase the number of specialization you can choose. (Elite + 3) 210 votes

Yes
18%
Jski.6180Fenom.9457runeblade.7514Karmapolice.4193Iron.4372folk.8190Kiva.9012Niobium.7392CaelestiaEmpyrea.2617Adenin.5973sorudo.9054hugo.4705TheQuickFox.3826mortrialus.3062Milan.9035AstralDusk.1670Alora.6841InvaGir.9158Lasiurus.4067iczek.9628 39 votes
No
81%
Ariurotl.3718maddoctor.2738godfat.2604Cerioth.7062Pifil.5193Menadena.7482LucianDK.8615Blaeys.3102TheGrimm.5624Arzurag.7506Rauderi.8706IndigoSundown.5419Abelisk.4527Glider.5792KryTiKaL.3125starhunter.6015Khailyn.6248Curunen.8729BunjiKugashira.9754DeanBB.4268 171 votes
<1

Comments

  • Trise.2865Trise.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    In a word: Why?

    If we want ANet to step up their game, then we must step up ours.

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @Trise.2865 said:
    In a word: Why?

    More varity and flexibility to customise your character without adding more elites etc

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @nosleepdemon.1368 said:
    Certainly not. Why would anyone suggest that? The amount of balance headaches that would cause would be unreal.

    This could solve the unbalanced situation!

  • Trise.2865Trise.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:
    In a word: Why?

    More varity and flexibility to customise your character without adding more elites etc

    and that's good because...?
    it's not gamebreaking because...?
    it adds value without removing it because...?

    Come on, man, support your premise.

    If we want ANet to step up their game, then we must step up ours.

  • Asum.4960Asum.4960 Member ✭✭✭
    No

    Why not 4 core + elite while we are at it? Imagine the customisation!

    But yea, no. There is already too little choice in terms of weapon skills being locked and very few utilities being viable per build.

    "As you know, those who you once called friends have become enemies." ~Glint

  • Jumpin Lumpix.6108Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 9, 2019
    Yes

    Yes more weapon types on more classes.

    Saying they shouldnt because you're worried they wont be able to balance it is an obscure point in exchange for cutting content.

  • Blocki.4931Blocki.4931 Member ✭✭✭✭

    As a warrior player I would welcome this. Having more than 3 traitlines I like to have at the same time is very annoying and choosing between them is rarely an option. This would allow me to have all the good things! But in turn make choice even less of an option because now you have everything at once.

    I don't even want to know the problems this would cause for other classes. They would have to severely reduce the impact of single traitlines if they wanted to do this, which isn't very fun nor exciting.

    Very passive aggressively chuckling, because I'm totally not mad on the Internet.

  • TheQuickFox.3826TheQuickFox.3826 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes

    I would love this. Fire+Earth+Water on my tempest. Fire for DPS, Earth for prot and condis, water for heals.

    Make Celementalist great again.

    Ascalon Will Prevail!

    GW Wiki user page | GW2 Wiki user page

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @Trise.2865 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:
    In a word: Why?

    More varity and flexibility to customise your character without adding more elites etc

    and that's good because...?
    it's not gamebreaking because...?
    it adds value without removing it because...?

    Come on, man, support your premise.

    It's good because it offers players a chance to be more colourful and creative with third builds

    It wouldn't break the game, because it's already broken!

    It adds way more value to the theory crafters and people looking to make more hybrid out of the box builds

  • Hugheszie.6291Hugheszie.6291 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    Hybrid Elite specs, mmmm.

    WVW will be so fun! :#

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @Hugheszie.6291 said:
    Hybrid Elite specs, mmmm.

    WVW will be so fun! :#

    I know right? Think of all the possible new combos, synergies and new play styles to be discovered

  • AstralDusk.1670AstralDusk.1670 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    I had actually assumed they would eventually do this once they had multiple elites for us to choose from.
    I'm not too invested on whether they actually do or not, I just assumed they would.

  • Alimar.8760Alimar.8760 Member ✭✭✭
    No

    No. I would rather have more specializations that gave us unique weapons, or potentially in the future the ability to wear another armor class. Than to be able to wield more than one at a time.

  • sorudo.9054sorudo.9054 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes

    some profs are useless without it's elite spec, others can easily go without, others have horrible elite specs.
    i would personally love to be able to use two at a time, even if it locks the special F keys behind it's weapon/connected spec i would still do it.

    for instance, necro's own as reaper but i find the scourge to be a really lame addition, any new elite spec can only be an improvement yet i really wanna keep using the greatsword.
    being able to use the new elite spec would be a big plus in my book, having a way to change the staff for something better.

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @AstralDusk.1670 said:
    I had actually assumed they would eventually do this once they had multiple elites for us to choose from.
    I'm not too invested on whether they actually do or not, I just assumed they would.

    Exactly, it's would open up alot more play styles and synergies and ways to customise your character to chose from. It's a logical progression

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    No.

    Doing so would entirely defeat the design of specializations which is to make you have trade-offs and not just stack the 4 strongest trait lines you have.

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @nosleepdemon.1368 said:
    Certainly not. Why would anyone suggest that? The amount of balance headaches that would cause would be unreal.

    This could solve the unbalanced situation!

    By making it utterly hilariously unbalanced and beyond any scope of good and evil? True.

    Why do you automatically assume it would make the situation worse and not better? Giving people more options to work with would allow them to make more elaborate builds and ways to combine existing skills, which would make for much more interesting situations.

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @nosleepdemon.1368 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @nosleepdemon.1368 said:
    Certainly not. Why would anyone suggest that? The amount of balance headaches that would cause would be unreal.

    This could solve the unbalanced situation!

    I feel that the old phrase "less is more" is pertinent when attempting to balance class mechanics.

    I agree with you, and I think the simple answer is you would still only have access to the same amount of attacks and utilities so it would not become overwhelming, it would simply allow you to modify them in new ways that are not possible at the moment

  • TexZero.7910TexZero.7910 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    @James.1065 said:
    Why do you automatically assume it would make the situation worse and not better? Giving people more options to work with would allow them to make more elaborate builds and ways to combine existing skills, which would make for much more interesting situations.

    Probably for the same reason you automatically assume this idea is good ?

    It's not good. It's a really bad idea for the game as it reduces player agency and choice. In addition to that it just adds more power creep to the game, not only in damage but durability and utiltiy too. Due to the following encounters become trivial and due to the trivial nature players become bored and leave at a faster rate meaning there's less people in your MMO.

    So maybe, just maybe.... We don't buff everyone to absurd levels by using such fallacious arguments like it increases build diversity or adds interesting situations when neither of those things are the net outcome in this proposed scenario.

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @Asum.4960 said:
    Why not 4 core + elite while we are at it? Imagine the customisation!

    But yea, no. There is already too little choice in terms of weapon skills being locked and very few utilities being viable per build.

    I agree with you and believe this would fix that issue without having to Add new weapon skills and utilities per build. That's what makes the game fun and not overwhelming like Wow where you trying to play with 50+ spells at a time.

  • Westenev.5289Westenev.5289 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    So, what happens to F2P or Core players? Do they have to buy an expansion, or forego an entire traitline?

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @Airdive.2613 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:
    In a word: Why?

    More varity and flexibility to customise your character without adding more elites etc

    Ironically, there are 10 possible core specialization combos along the chosen elite specialization in the case of elite+2 and in the case of elite+3. Thus all you're getting is pure power creep.

    Assuming all classes skills and traits remaining the same with the only modification being you choose 1 elite and 3 additional specs per profession, the increase would be relative to the current situation and the power creep impact would remain neutral

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @Westenev.5289 said:
    So, what happens to F2P or Core players? Do they have to buy an expansion, or forego an entire traitline?

    Nope, you pick 4 lines. But only 1 of those can be an elite. (So elite +3 or 4 core lines) I hope that clears up my idea

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @TexZero.7910 said:
    No.

    Doing so would entirely defeat the design of specializations which is to make you have trade-offs and not just stack the 4 strongest trait lines you have.

    I dis-agree: you still have to make a trade off when choosing 4 lines out of 7 options. And in terms of game design by giving players addition utility, durability etc it moves the game further from the "holy trinity" effect which I believe still exist when you forced to only have 3 lines

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2019
    No

    @James.1065 said:

    @Airdive.2613 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:
    In a word: Why?

    More varity and flexibility to customise your character without adding more elites etc

    Ironically, there are 10 possible core specialization combos along the chosen elite specialization in the case of elite+2 and in the case of elite+3. Thus all you're getting is pure power creep.

    Assuming all classes skills and traits remaining the same with the only modification being you choose 1 elite and 3 additional specs per profession, the increase would be relative to the current situation and the power creep impact would remain neutral

    Why not just let every class use all their trait lines then? Why have choice at all?

    Also the power creep would be huge and disproportionate between classes since different trait lines are not all equally strong, especially between classes.

    If you can't see how more traits and more elite specializations, which are among the most powerful trait lines with further benefits like giving access to some of the most powerful weapon skills, would create huge power creep, then there is no reason for further arguing.

    Choice does not eliminate power creep or unbalance, that's where you are mistaken.

  • avey.4201avey.4201 Member ✭✭
    No

    Toughness and vitality are already a wasted stat, only viable options are glass because they'll 1 hit you anyway, so why not stack more damage, mobility, and utility on broken specs, we'd be better off with 1 less spec at this time, may actually add more true variety, better balance too. I feel bad for those allergic to dairy, GW2 full of cheese.

  • Gehenna.3625Gehenna.3625 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    I said no but it's not because I don't agree that there's an issue, but I just don't think this is the right solution.

    "In my experience, if you can't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. The details are everything." ~ Minister Durano

  • For now elite specifications are based on new expansions so have to wait for that. Maybe in the future they will stop making expansions and just fill the game with more living story episodes faster. Some people will call that crazy, but you never know lol.

  • JDub.1530JDub.1530 Member ✭✭✭
    No

    If my numbers are correct, we currently have 30 different trait line options. If we added a 4th trait line, we would have 25 options. So I don't see how this idea increases options and diversity.

  • Donutdude.9582Donutdude.9582 Member ✭✭✭
    No

    Not required. ArenaNet have already hit the sweet spot as it allows for clearly defined difference between each.

    My Wiki Profile
    Honorary Seraph Captain
    Guardian Expert

  • Jski.6180Jski.6180 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes

    Yes but only if you take away all type of state boons from lines and make it a pure gear build. So if you want to do dmg you have to build dmg but your lines will mod your effects more.

    Though i must say as things stand only some classes benefit from the 3 lines only more so then other classes a 4th may make these class too much.

    The game is not balanced right now.

    See ELE forms and you will get my views.

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @James.1065 said:
    Nope, you pick 4 lines. But only 1 of those can be an elite. (So elite +3 or 4 core lines) I hope that clears up my idea

    Why stop at 4 lines? Why not 5? How about 6? Why not include lines from other professions?


    Instead of proposing a solution first and trying to retrofit reasons for it, how about start with a clear statement of the problems you see. Then we can have a decent discussion about potential solutions. It seems unlikely that "four trait lines" is going to end up being the most promising possibility.

    This is a poll to open a discussion about adding more diversity to the game through more build options, not "proposing a solution" to a non-existent problems

  • James.1065James.1065 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    Why do you automatically assume it would make the situation worse and not better? Giving people more options to work with would allow them to make more elaborate builds and ways to combine existing skills, which would make for much more interesting situations.

    I can't speak for Cyninja, though I suspect he might agree with me. The cost for, "Giving people more options..." would be that players would have less choices to make. Lowering or eliminating the opportunity costs inherent in build-crafting removes the need for players to have to actually sacrifice one something to get another. There are already not enough trade-offs in GW2 build crafting. Removing more opportunity costs makes for a duller game and less differentiation between builds. This would be a move towards a dumber game. Not for me, thanks.

    I like your economic approach to the discussion and I agree with you that removing trade-off decisions will kill the game, but you can currently choose 3 out of 7 lines. I don't think making it 4 out of 7 will make the game "too boring". I believe there will still be enough options that you have to choose from, while adding value to more diverse range of builds

  • Goettel.4389Goettel.4389 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    They "should"n't do anything.

  • HazyDaisy.4107HazyDaisy.4107 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    A year or 2 ago when trait lines were all messed up and there was one trait on one line you would've loved to have in the mix but needed all the traits in the other 2 core lines you picked so you sacrificed that one core line. It made sense a year or 2 ago for more options, but since, most professions have seen their lines cleaned up or revamped to the point it's not really necessary to have that much extra umph.

    It would be fun however to run 2 elites at once, but, again that's too much power depending on your chosen profession and mode.

    I'd just personally like to see them remove weapon binding from elite lines, leave the special skills locked behind having the line equipped, but if you have that elite trained (scourge for instance) let us run 3 core traits and still be able to wield a torch.

    [HaHa] Hazardous Hallucination - Sorrows Furnace

  • Yes

    Yes, have all specializations open for use but only 9 trait points to spend across them.

  • Menzo.2185Menzo.2185 Member ✭✭✭
    No

    Anet could rework the whole tree of traits, but never increase the number of specializations.

  • Curunen.8729Curunen.8729 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:
    In a word: Why?

    More varity and flexibility to customise your character without adding more elites etc

    and that's good because...?
    it's not gamebreaking because...?
    it adds value without removing it because...?

    Come on, man, support your premise.

    It wouldn't break the game, because it's already broken!

    Heh, fair point, can't argue with that! :D

    My ears, how are you! | Kourna Jackrabbit for default Springer

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2019
    No

    @James.1065 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    Why do you automatically assume it would make the situation worse and not better? Giving people more options to work with would allow them to make more elaborate builds and ways to combine existing skills, which would make for much more interesting situations.

    I can't speak for Cyninja, though I suspect he might agree with me. The cost for, "Giving people more options..." would be that players would have less choices to make. Lowering or eliminating the opportunity costs inherent in build-crafting removes the need for players to have to actually sacrifice one something to get another. There are already not enough trade-offs in GW2 build crafting. Removing more opportunity costs makes for a duller game and less differentiation between builds. This would be a move towards a dumber game. Not for me, thanks.

    I like your economic approach to the discussion and I agree with you that removing trade-off decisions will kill the game, but you can currently choose 3 out of 7 lines. I don't think making it 4 out of 7 will make the game "too boring". I believe there will still be enough options that you have to choose from, while adding value to more diverse range of builds

    Incorrect, you have 5 base line trait lines and 2 elite specializations.

    Being able to chose 2 out of 5 trait lines is way different than being able to chose 3 out of 5 (or from 3 out of 5 to 4 out of 5). The choice for the elite (depending on how it gets implemented) either goes from optional as third trait line to 1 of 2 on an elite spec.

    Those are huge changes and not some minor alterations. That's not even getting into the amount of synergy which trait lines right now have which would explode since some combinations are simply not possible right now but would be with 3 or 4 trait lines.

    @Curunen.8729 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:
    In a word: Why?

    More varity and flexibility to customise your character without adding more elites etc

    and that's good because...?
    it's not gamebreaking because...?
    it adds value without removing it because...?

    Come on, man, support your premise.

    It wouldn't break the game, because it's already broken!

    Heh, fair point, can't argue with that! :D

    Not really, it's simply a cheap cop out to not have to address the issue of how unbalanced things can become. Balance is not a binary state of either yes or no. It has very far degrees of variation and depth. To use this as argument one would have to show that current balance is so far away from reason that more unbalance would make no difference.

    Subjective opinion ignored, that would be quite difficult given how close many damage benchmarks are and even spvp representation of classes.

  • mtpelion.4562mtpelion.4562 Member ✭✭✭
    No

    I want them to go the other direction and further limit customization by making one of the core trait lines Elite to prevent you from being able to mix and match the expansion Elite lines with all of the core lines.

    For example, Arcana for Elementalists should be set to Elite so that it can never be mixed with Tempest.

    Lots of customization is amazing in a single player game. It is the absolute worst thing possible in a multiplayer game that has any form of competitive game mode.

  • @James.1065 said:

    @Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

    @James.1065 said:
    Nope, you pick 4 lines. But only 1 of those can be an elite. (So elite +3 or 4 core lines) I hope that clears up my idea

    Why stop at 4 lines? Why not 5? How about 6? Why not include lines from other professions?


    Instead of proposing a solution first and trying to retrofit reasons for it, how about start with a clear statement of the problems you see. Then we can have a decent discussion about potential solutions. It seems unlikely that "four trait lines" is going to end up being the most promising possibility.

    This is a poll to open a discussion about adding more diversity to the game through more build options, not "proposing a solution" to a non-existent problems

    Polls don't "open discussions;" they close them by assuming the options available.

    A thread to begin discussion would ask, "what can we do to add build diversity to the game?" Or even, "is there enough build diversity in the game," as I'm not sure that everyone agrees with the premise of the question.

    Hype is the path to the dark side. Hype leads to unfulfilled expectations. Disappointment leads to anger. Anger leads to disgust. Disgust leads to "oh, new shinies! I'm back!"

  • Curunen.8729Curunen.8729 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    @Cyninja.2954 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @IndigoSundown.5419 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    Why do you automatically assume it would make the situation worse and not better? Giving people more options to work with would allow them to make more elaborate builds and ways to combine existing skills, which would make for much more interesting situations.

    I can't speak for Cyninja, though I suspect he might agree with me. The cost for, "Giving people more options..." would be that players would have less choices to make. Lowering or eliminating the opportunity costs inherent in build-crafting removes the need for players to have to actually sacrifice one something to get another. There are already not enough trade-offs in GW2 build crafting. Removing more opportunity costs makes for a duller game and less differentiation between builds. This would be a move towards a dumber game. Not for me, thanks.

    I like your economic approach to the discussion and I agree with you that removing trade-off decisions will kill the game, but you can currently choose 3 out of 7 lines. I don't think making it 4 out of 7 will make the game "too boring". I believe there will still be enough options that you have to choose from, while adding value to more diverse range of builds

    Incorrect, you have 5 base line trait lines and 2 elite specializations.

    Being able to chose 2 out of 5 trait lines is way different than being able to chose 3 out of 5 (or from 3 out of 5 to 4 out of 5). The choice for the elite (depending on how it gets implemented) either goes from optional as third trait line to 1 of 2 on an elite spec.

    Those are huge changes and not some minor alterations. That's not even getting into the amount of synergy which trait lines right now have which would explode since some combinations are simply not possible right now but would be with 3 or 4 trait lines.

    @Curunen.8729 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Trise.2865 said:
    In a word: Why?

    More varity and flexibility to customise your character without adding more elites etc

    and that's good because...?
    it's not gamebreaking because...?
    it adds value without removing it because...?

    Come on, man, support your premise.

    It wouldn't break the game, because it's already broken!

    Heh, fair point, can't argue with that! :D

    Not really, it's simply a cheap cop out to not have to address the issue of how unbalanced things can become. Balance is not a binary state of either yes or no. It has very far degrees of variation and depth. To use this as argument one would have to show that current balance is so far away from reason that more unbalance would make no difference.

    Subjective opinion ignored, that would be quite difficult given how close many damage benchmarks are and even spvp representation of classes.

    I was tongue in cheek, but anyway I agree the op is not a good idea for said reasons.

    My ears, how are you! | Kourna Jackrabbit for default Springer

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.