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

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

2>

Comments

  • No

    @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!

    It would create a even bigger balance issue, a Chrono+ Mirage, Dare devil + Dead Eye can you say nightmare to balance.

  • IndigoSundown.5419IndigoSundown.5419 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.

    I'm afraid, OP, that I'm with Cyninja. There are already too few opportunity costs in character building. I'd prefer the game if people had to make more hard choices, rather than less.

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- Santayana

  • Tiviana.2650Tiviana.2650 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 10, 2019
    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.

    Because it isnt utterly broken in balance now? Meta would like a word. Nothing much will change except give people more options and maybe just maybe open up more specs to be viable.

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

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @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.

    Because it isnt utterly broken in balance now? Meta would like a word. Nothing much will change except give people more options and maybe just maybe open up more specs to be viable.

    Yes, meta would like a word. There is multiple viable specs and builds which can compete with each other. If you assume that you can ever reach total equalibrium between all classes you are delusional.

    Stop hyperboling and exaggerating. Balance might not be perfect, but we are far from a state of total imbalance, even if people like to pretend and throw hissy fits.

    EDIT: and just to be clear in case you don't understand. The fact that a meta exists is in no way proof that the game is unbalanced. You would first have to show that the meta is favoring only 1 class, and that excruciatingly so. Especially in areas of damage this is plain not the case.

  • No

    @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!

    no it would make it far worse...

  • Apolo.5942Apolo.5942 Member ✭✭✭
    Yes

    I voted yes, but with a cabeat.

    My reasoning is the following. In PvE balance does not really matter so it does not really matter how this would impact pve.

    In PvP the balance matters a lot, right now damage is waaaaayyyyyyy off the charts in pvp and needs to go down Drastically. Along those lines and generally speaking traits lines are broadly categorized as physical damage, condition damage, healing, utility and damage reduction. Combining PH and CD is not really viable because for once the stats are much harder to combine and when its done, like with viper, it becomes too glassy. On the other hand having a free spec slot for either healing utility or damage reduction would indirectly reduce the damage flying around.

    Conditions need to be normalized:
    1- SINGLE PLAYER conditions stack on DURATION.
    2- MULTIPLE PLAYERS conditions stack on INTENSITY.
    3- REBALANCE condition duration, damage and application.

  • Locce.8405Locce.8405 Member ✭✭✭
    No

    I have to vote no. Although it might be a way to adress some balance issues it sure has the potential to create new ones and requires considerably more effort on the developers' part than trying to improve balance within the current framework.

  • No

    @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!

    This solves the game's balance problems the same way you could solve the threat of nuclear weapons by just detonating all of them.

  • No

    Honestly, no they shouldn't because anet is already having trouble balancing the classes. This would just create more problems.

    What they SHOULD do however, is remove weapon restrictions for elite specialisations.

  • Ayakaru.6583Ayakaru.6583 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    Apart from the ludicrous suggestion and balancing issues, what are you gonna do about contradicting mechanics, like the necromancer death shrouds

    To defeat the dragons, see the good in them.
    Zhaitan reunites lost ones, primordus creates fertile land, mordremoth spreads the green, and jormag..
    ..jormag? Who's that?

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

    @Ayakaru.6583 said:
    Apart from the ludicrous suggestion and balancing issues, what are you gonna do about contradicting mechanics, like the necromancer death shrouds

    You miss-understand the sugestion: you can still only choose 1 elite line and 3 others instead of 2.

    There wouldn't be conflicting mechanics since you can't choose scourge and reaper..... they are both elites....

  • Cerioth.7062Cerioth.7062 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    No, no and no. I feel like many builds would lose their identity this way, and it would increase the powercreep.

  • Ayakaru.6583Ayakaru.6583 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    @James.1065 said:

    @Ayakaru.6583 said:
    Apart from the ludicrous suggestion and balancing issues, what are you gonna do about contradicting mechanics, like the necromancer death shrouds

    You miss-understand the sugestion: you can still only choose 1 elite line and 3 others instead of 2.

    There wouldn't be conflicting mechanics since you can't choose scourge and reaper..... they are both elites....

    Oooh.. i thought the suggestion was to have multiple elite lines.
    But they meant to preserve the original three lines independent of the elite line.

    Fair enough.
    I once made a suggestion to have a seperate set of trait lines for underwater combat

    To defeat the dragons, see the good in them.
    Zhaitan reunites lost ones, primordus creates fertile land, mordremoth spreads the green, and jormag..
    ..jormag? Who's that?

  • Tiviana.2650Tiviana.2650 Member ✭✭✭✭
    Yes

    @Ayakaru.6583 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Ayakaru.6583 said:
    Apart from the ludicrous suggestion and balancing issues, what are you gonna do about contradicting mechanics, like the necromancer death shrouds

    You miss-understand the sugestion: you can still only choose 1 elite line and 3 others instead of 2.

    There wouldn't be conflicting mechanics since you can't choose scourge and reaper..... they are both elites....

    Oooh.. i thought the suggestion was to have multiple elite lines.
    But they meant to preserve the original three lines independent of the elite line.

    Fair enough.
    I once made a suggestion to have a seperate set of trait lines for underwater combat

    It would be fine it could open up new roles to specs that really didnt bring much to the group. How about a thief in a tank role, or a warrior as tank or heal. More options is good for the game, balance will always be a problem whether you have 3 classes or 10. But its still better to have more specs available for different roles to bring more classes in. I think it would allow more people to try raiding wvw etc.

  • No

    @Tiviana.2650 said:

    @Ayakaru.6583 said:

    @James.1065 said:

    @Ayakaru.6583 said:
    Apart from the ludicrous suggestion and balancing issues, what are you gonna do about contradicting mechanics, like the necromancer death shrouds

    You miss-understand the sugestion: you can still only choose 1 elite line and 3 others instead of 2.

    There wouldn't be conflicting mechanics since you can't choose scourge and reaper..... they are both elites....

    Oooh.. i thought the suggestion was to have multiple elite lines.
    But they meant to preserve the original three lines independent of the elite line.

    Fair enough.
    I once made a suggestion to have a seperate set of trait lines for underwater combat

    It would be fine it could open up new roles to specs that really didnt bring much to the group. How about a thief in a tank role, or a warrior as tank or heal. More options is good for the game, balance will always be a problem whether you have 3 classes or 10. But its still better to have more specs available for different roles to bring more classes in. I think it would allow more people to try raiding wvw etc.

    More diversity is good, but what the OP is suggesting wouldn't increase diversity. It would only introduce further powercreep, which is a bad thing.

    Taking your example, an additional core traitline wouldn't not allow a Thief or Warrior to tank or heal any better than what they are currently capable of. As well, it would just further increase the difference between the higher preforming build and the lower performing builds.

    The Deadeye Rifle build is currently the highest benchmarked build, using Deadly Arts/Critical Strikes/Deadeye. An additional traitline would allow that same build to also bring Trickery. That's a +3 Initiative, +15% damage, and -20% reduction on Steal; all of which will greatly increase the DPS of the highest performing build with no drawback.

  • Ariurotl.3718Ariurotl.3718 Member ✭✭✭
    No

    Of course not.

  • Menadena.7482Menadena.7482 Member ✭✭✭✭
    No

    While it would be fun it would cause all sorts of problems. Each and every possible combination would need to be tested and some combinations simply would not work. Then you get into the balance issues .... in addition to there being quite a few you wind up with the intentional cons of one specialization cancelled out by another one.

    New to the game? Feel free to give a yell if you need PVE help.

  • Chasind.3128Chasind.3128 Member ✭✭✭
    No

    No, They need to actually make all elites viable 1st.
    No ele elite is actually viable just a nice little nudge from anet saying "i guess we cant forget you guys, so heres something we mustered in 2 minutes. take it or leave it"

  • No

    It would put players at a disadvantage, and create a pay-to-win scenario. Those who don't have their elite spec unlocked, or own at least 1 of the expansions, would be limited to 3 trait lines while those who bought the expansion(s) and unlocked their elite spec would have 4 trait lines.

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

    @Charrbeque.8729 said:
    It would put players at a disadvantage, and create a pay-to-win scenario. Those who don't have their elite spec unlocked, or own at least 1 of the expansions, would be limited to 3 trait lines while those who bought the expansion(s) and unlocked their elite spec would have 4 trait lines.

    Dont be daft, curently do you only have 2 lines open need to own an expansion to open the 3rd line?

    The idea is 4 lines are open but you still can only chose 1 elite
    ...

©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.