Chant.2073

I like these goals! I'm a player who likes to have interesting choices to make, on build, equipment, and playstyle, so "a broad set of combat strategies in order to enable a wide range of playstyles" is something I value a lot. This section seems very ... observational, and that worries me. I tend to expect that game designers have opinions about what roles their game should offer, and to try to shape the game so that those roles emerge. Instead, it looks like you're simply echoing back what the community has decided, and our "decisions" are just responses to the game's selection pressures. Was it your intent that these would be the roles? What attracts me to this game, and distinguishes it from other MMOs I'm aware of, is the apparent flexibility and nuance to the choices players are invited to make. Looking at the skill and trait systems, it seems natural for players to come up with builds that can't readily be described with a simple, generic label like "healer". Every class has a specialization that rewards hybrid builds. Every trait line offers synergies that diverge from its core purpose. That's really cool, and I've always interpreted it as a thoughtful and intentional aspect of your design. I appreciate you mentioning that "not every build needs to perfectly fit into a role". I hope that remains true as you approach your ideal form of balance. How strict is this "purity of purpose" principle? There are lots of skills, traits, and weapons that fit two or three of these labels. I think this is essential to the game's nuance, and I think it supports your goal of having a diverse set of good choices available. The combo system is particularly "impure". Depending on the combo field, a blast finisher could be boon support, soft control, or healing. Depending on the finisher, a fire field could be damage, boon support, or both. How does purity of purpose apply to skills with combo fields or combo finishers? My hope is that this principle is aimed at each choice in isolation, and won't prevent interesting synergies that expand a choice's purpose beyond its core identity. My fear is that this principle will rob the game of its identity; it seems like a threat to the trait system, the combo system, and the elementalist profession, all of which I adore.

It's not just gaming. Lots of software development teams have this antipattern. Here's how I see the cause and effect: A development team is pressured to deliver on time. They are not pressured to meet good technical standards. (Optional) The development team resists the pressure. Lay decision-makers identify this resistance as counterproductive, and discourage it, e.g. by firing the people who are expressing it. (These are often their most skilled and knowledgeable staff.) The development team caves to the pressure. They satisfy lay expectations by making changes as expediently, and as superficially, as possible. The software's technical quality declines. Abstract traits like "security", "extensibility", and "maintainability" erode. Low-quality software increases the risk of introducing bugs with each change. Increased bugs irritate lay decision-makers. Lay decision-makers increase pressure and scrutiny. The nature of the pressure and scrutiny doesn't change. Rate and severity of new bugs increases. Developers burn out, or are fired. The collective skill and knowledge of the team declines. It's no longer even possible to achieve good technical standards, because the team isn't qualified. Congratulations, lay decision-makers. You are in a hell of your own design. Now, I'm not really convinced that bleak narrative fits what I'm seeing here in GW2. Maybe I haven't been paying the same attention you have, but my impression of this game's quality, as a piece of software and as an ongoing software development effort, is much higher than a lot of games I've played and enjoyed (and considered worthwhile).

Is it actually fun to rush through a dungeon with four veteran gamers who just want to get their loot as quickly as possible, and who know exactly how to do that? Plenty of people will say "yes", and that's valid. This guild isn't for those people. I like a game that gives me a lot of choices. I like thinking about those choices, and trying out different combinations. Some choices will work, some choices will work better, and some choices will flop. Guild Wars 2 gives players a lot of choices, and that appeals to me. But it seems to me like other players expect me not to make any choices at all: I'm supposed to look up builds and skill rotations on MetaBattle, and do exactly what they say, because that will get me (and, more importantly, them) through content with maximum efficiency and minimum uncertainty. Failing hurts, and I know ignoring others' advice makes me prone to repeating their failures. Yet I'd rather experience my own failure than someone else's success; that's what "playing" means to me, and games are meant to be played. When I ultimately do succeed, that success will be grounded in my own understanding and effort, and it will mean so much more. If what I'm saying resonates with you, then here's my appeal: let's build a community where those ideals are the norm. Let's be patient with each other. Let's try out dungeons without anyone who's done them before, and suffer defeat a dozen times before our first clear. Let's talk about our quirky builds, and figure out ways they could complement each other. Let's put a septacaliper in an octocaliper receptacle. Let's look back at our failures and say "wow, we were dumb" with smiles on our faces. Let's experience everything in the game as though it were new. Let's actually play. Contact me by replying to this thread, or by sending me mail ingame using my account name, Chant.2073. I take he/him/his.