Stop ruining new Elite Specs with trade-offs, cast times and insane aftercasts

[DaZeeHero.5210]

The biggest reason GW1 was in many ways mechanically better than GW2 is it was made in an era before gaming had become so corrupted by big corporate CEOs who have never played games in their life calling the shots.

 

Games are always better when the decisions on what goes into the game are made by people who understand said game, devs who are also gamers and love the game they work on.

 

Whether or not FFXIV is something you personally can appreciate the biggest reason it has become only more successful with time is that is exactly how they do it. Square Enix lets Yoshida do what he wants with the game, and his dev team, and they truly do care.

 

This is becuase SE has realized that quality and not being disconnected from the playerbase brings far better long term success. They may not always give the team 100% of the funding they ask for but all the major decisions on content and things that end up in  game are made by the devs, not bean counters.

When the bean counter non gamers are calling the important shots it not only upsets players, but the devs as well, since I can guarantee at least some of those devs want to give us better but aren't allowed to. and then if players get angry at the "devs" it must feel terrible to those who wanted to do right by us and the  game but couldn't because the REAL enemy is the ones who are pulling the devs strings.

Edited September 25, 2021 by DaZeeHero.5210

[voltaicbore.8012]

51 minutes ago, DaZeeHero.5210 said:

When the bean counter non gamers are calling the important shots it not only upsets players, but the devs as well, since I can guarantee at least some of those devs want to give us better but aren't allowed to. and then if players get angry at the "devs" it must feel terrible to those who wanted to do right by us and the  game but couldn't because the REAL enemy is the ones who are pulling the devs strings.

While this is true for certain products, I'm not sure how applicable this is within ANet itself, as well as within the relationship between NCSoft and ANet.

I am not sure how engaged the dev team as a whole is with playing the game. I'm not saying they have to be sweaty 40K AP nerds about it, but I don't think the top director folks at ANet are forcing the developers into making out-of-touch choices. I think it's likely that the devs themselves are out of touch with us, and with certain things that bother a lot of us about the game. If I had to guess, the nature of the so-called 'tradeoffs' in the EoD specs so far were likely the result of many meetings, and I doubt it was a few bean counters who insisted that the new specs be so unimpressive.

As for NCSoft, it's true that they probably make a lot of important decisions (revenue performance benchmarks, player counts, maybe even maximum release deadlines). At the same time, I think NCSoft generally keeps ANet on a fairly long leash, or at least gives the studio years to deliver on various projects before bringing the hammer down. I don't think anyone at NCSoft had anything to do with the design of Bladesworn, Catalyst, Willbender, etc.... that was all ANet people doing very unimpressive work.

TLDR; There are probably some things that the bean counters do that pressure the devs a bit, but I think most of the lackluster elite spec work we've seen is just the devs running out of ideas, not corporate greed.

[DaZeeHero.5210]

Oh definitely there are exceptions but I'd still like to think theres someone in the dev team who even if they dont play the game want to make it good and enjoy their job.

[Arheundel.6451]

10 hours ago, DaZeeHero.5210 said:

The biggest reason GW1 was in many ways mechanically better than GW2 is it was made in an era before gaming had become so corrupted by big corporate CEOs who have never played games in their life calling the shots.

 

Games are always better when the decisions on what goes into the game are made by people who understand said game, devs who are also gamers and love the game they work on.

 

Whether or not FFXIV is something you personally can appreciate the biggest reason it has become only more successful with time is that is exactly how they do it. Square Enix lets Yoshida do what he wants with the game, and his dev team, and they truly do care.

 

This is becuase SE has realized that quality and not being disconnected from the playerbase brings far better long term success. They may not always give the team 100% of the funding they ask for but all the major decisions on content and things that end up in  game are made by the devs, not bean counters.

When the bean counter non gamers are calling the important shots it not only upsets players, but the devs as well, since I can guarantee at least some of those devs want to give us better but aren't allowed to. and then if players get angry at the "devs" it must feel terrible to those who wanted to do right by us and the  game but couldn't because the REAL enemy is the ones who are pulling the devs strings.

BRAVO! Well said! 

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

10 hours ago, DaZeeHero.5210 said:

The biggest reason GW1 was in many ways mechanically better than GW2 is it was made in an era before gaming had become so corrupted by big corporate CEOs who have never played games in their life calling the shots.

 

Games are always better when the decisions on what goes into the game are made by people who understand said game, devs who are also gamers and love the game they work on.

I can only talk about the PvP side of GW2, but i'm like 90% certain that it isn't like this.

 

PvP balance and possibly PvP entirely are headed by 1 singular person who is a person who understands said game and was brought on to manage PvP pretty much on their own because of that understanding.

 

But it was also this same person that started to steer PvP in the direction we've arrived in now. 0 Damage, bunkers, nerfing & removing everything.

And that's not so much from a lack of understanding. That's from listening to people on here who think they can do the same thing, but in practice would probably just land us in a similar situation.

 

Overall I think the whole putting 1 (paid?) intern in charge of the entire PvP gamemode and then otherwise calling it quits is about as hands-off as corporate big suits can get. 

[Tescao.3042]

You see what the whole paradox is, the balancing team sees the whole picture deeper than we do, each individually, so our assessment is subjective. With a decrease in the peak values of the explosion, as well as the sustain, it became possible to observe slower combinations of weapons and specializations. There is a possibility that in the future, following this course, we will also be able to see the appearance of full-fledged hybrids. 

WvW hybrids are currently a little different, after removing this type of amulets.

Edited September 25, 2021 by DomHemingway.8436

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

I honestly don’t know what to think.
 

I feel like Anet is trying…the specs seem like they have a lot more though put into them, but they are fundamentally bad for a number of reasons and it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what those reasons even are. Lack of synergy, lack of creativity in skill effects (so far every skill in the beta is basically a flat damage skill) and the clunkiness (animations and cast-time) of some of the mechanics is what’s really making these new classes feel so terrible.
 

after playing the beta briefly, The tradeoffs also seem well thought out and not haphazard…but it’s completely uninformed.
 

here is what I picked up on with the tradeoffs. The tradeoffs are indeed tied to the profession as a whole…and so when that tradeoff is bad (like catalyst), the entire profession is handicapped. It’s important to note that some of the beta classes didn’t have tradeoffs. I believe Vortuoso, Willbender don’t have class mechanic specific tradeoffs, and these classes too shared similar design issues as those with tradeoffs.
 

So coupled with all the above, tradeoff design is not the only issue here, and I believe these problems come  about due to a lack of understanding about game design in general.

 

Everything also feels too…linear. Like I’m being put into a timeout box:

 

Press A get some might…press B do some damage…Press C get some healing… 

 

trait A do some damage…trait B do some might…trait C do some healing. 
 

utility A do some damage…utility B do some fury…utility C do some regen.

 

Why does nothing effect anything else? Why is everything just a damage skill? Why does this class with a huge tradeoff have so little payoff?

 

I could kinda just spiel on about how I feel here but it feels like a well crafted mess. It’s hard to be mad when you can tell the dev who designed the class is genuinely trying and you can tell in the streams how hard he’s working… but he’s in the box. I don’t think he “gets” it and I think lot of people also don’t really get it either…like the folks he talks to in those discords.

 

 

[nerva.7940]

On 9/22/2021 at 9:41 PM, mortrialus.3062 said:

Cuz what this game really needs is another 5 years of everyone impotently and limp wristedly slapping each other while no one dies. 

I'd rather e-specs are released a bit bland or underpowered, and then scaled up gradually, than utterly busted OP and ruining multiple game modes for 2+ years! PoF's powercreep took 4 years to resolve! 

Edited September 25, 2021 by nerva.7940

[mortrialus.3062]

2 hours ago, nerva.7940 said:

I'd rather e-specs are released a bit bland or underpowered, and then scaled up gradually, than utterly busted OP and ruining multiple game modes for 2+ years! PoF's powercreep took 4 years to resolve! 

I can understand not wanting them overpowered, but I can't imagine actively wanting them to be bland.

Edited September 25, 2021 by mortrialus.3062

[Bast.7253]

4 hours ago, nerva.7940 said:

I'd rather e-specs are released a bit bland or underpowered, and then scaled up gradually, than utterly busted OP and ruining multiple game modes for 2+ years! PoF's powercreep took 4 years to resolve! 

Resolved? Holo says hi.

But yeah, these new specs have all been pretty kitten. Harbinger was alright, virtuoso had one build that played like burst condi mirage I enjoyed, and willbender and catalyst feel like a downgrade from core. Vindicator is probably the only one so far that seems interesting. And the new warrior spec just feels like it's going to be a meme or revolve around ammunition and shout abuse to be semi viable. Even then I doubt people will be using the actual profession mechanic or dragon slash.

I'm assuming that all the new specs are made entirely for the new challenge mode strike missions. 

[Allarius.5670]

23 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

here is what I picked up on with the tradeoffs. The tradeoffs are indeed tied to the profession as a whole…and so when that tradeoff is bad (like catalyst), the entire profession is handicapped. It’s important to note that some of the beta classes didn’t have tradeoffs. I believe Vortuoso, Willbender don’t have class mechanic specific tradeoffs, and these classes too shared similar design issues as those with tradeoffs.

I'm failing to follow your reasoning on this one. Please help me to understand where you are coming from with the specific tradeoffs you mentioned.

Catalyst: 
Gains Jade Sphere for free. Unless the addition of the Jade Sphere mechanic is equivalent to other Minor Adept traits or is otherwise paid for via purposefully lack-luster traits, but neither appears to be the case.

Virtuoso: 
Mesmer has built in tradeoffs via clones destroyed for a scalable instant cast effect. Clones provide target saturation and auto-attack effects (defense and offense potential) and are destroyable by opponents. The Mesmer actively decides to trade clones for instant cast effects that are more effective for each clone destroyed (offense, defense, and control options). 

Virtuoso gains a non-destroyable resource but loses the target saturation and auto-attack effects of clones. Virtuoso also loses instant cast shatters for ranged shatters with a cast time.

Mesmer shatters and Virtuoso shatters both have counterplay, clones can be destroyed during transit and bladesongs have projectile counters. Instant cast dramatically lowers counterplay potential in melee. In combination with Illusionary Persona effects, this promotes a melee centric playstyle for Mesmer. The Virtuoso gives up Illusionary Persona effects and instant cast for ranged pressure potential.

Willbender:
Willbender gives up passive effects with instant cast team oriented activations for on-hit effects that trigger for a period after activating cast time skills that have mobility + effect.

The built in trade off for core is whether maintaining the passive out values the activation. The Willbender has a different built in trade off, whether to maintain a currently active virtue effect or cast a different virtue and gain that effect instead. Does the activation effect out value swapping virtue effects? 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

14 minutes ago, Allarius.5670 said:

I'm failing to follow your reasoning on this one. Please help me to understand where you are coming from with the specific tradeoffs you mentioned.

Catalyst: 
Gains Jade Sphere for free. Unless the addition of the Jade Sphere mechanic is equivalent to other Minor Adept traits or is otherwise paid for via purposefully lack-luster traits, but neither appears to be the case.

Virtuoso: 
Mesmer has built in tradeoffs via clones destroyed for a scalable instant cast effect. Clones provide target saturation and auto-attack effects (defense and offense potential) and are destroyable by opponents. The Mesmer actively decides to trade clones for instant cast effects that are more effective for each clone destroyed (offense, defense, and control options). 

Virtuoso gains a non-destroyable resource but loses the target saturation and auto-attack effects of clones. Virtuoso also loses instant cast shatters for ranged shatters with a cast time.

Mesmer shatters and Virtuoso shatters both have counterplay, clones can be destroyed during transit and bladesongs have projectile counters. Instant cast dramatically lowers counterplay potential in melee. In combination with Illusionary Persona effects, this promotes a melee centric playstyle for Mesmer. The Virtuoso gives up Illusionary Persona effects and instant cast for ranged pressure potential.

Willbender:
Willbender gives up passive effects with instant cast team oriented activations for on-hit effects that trigger for a period after activating cast time skills that have mobility + effect.

The built in trade off for core is whether maintaining the passive out values the activation. The Willbender has a different built in trade off, whether to maintain a currently active virtue effect or cast a different virtue and gain that effect instead. Does the activation effect out value swapping virtue effects? 

 

Hey.

 

You should read this thread 

 

Opportunity cost, which is mostly what you are alluding to is a "kind" of tradeoff...but it is not the only kind tradeoff... Here I'm trying to make a clear distinction; that opportunity cost and class mechanics like Blade-sworn are different kinds, that lead to different behaviors.

 

It's like picking two specs on the same class...say Reaper and Scourge, and then saying that "not having reaper spec is a tradeoff for scourge." I mean...sure that is still a tradeoff, but it is not the same kind of trade off as "a scourge having a resource mechanic to manage skills." Not making a distinction between the two, basically means you can justify the design of anything by just saying it's an opportunity cost, which isn't constructive. 

 

Another example, I can just say that, "Playing Elementalist, is a tradeoff because I could be playing Necromancer." Which is valid, but it's not constructive to what we need to talk about which are mechanics...that need to be designed better. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[agrippastrilemma.8741]

On 9/26/2021 at 3:47 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Hey.

 

You should read this thread 

 

Opportunity cost, which is mostly what you are alluding to is a "kind" of tradeoff...but it is not the only kind tradeoff... Here I'm trying to make a clear distinction; that opportunity cost and class mechanics like Blade-sworn are different kinds, that lead to different behaviors.

 

It's like picking two specs on the same class...say Reaper and Scourge, and then saying that "not having reaper spec is a tradeoff for scourge." I mean...sure that is still a tradeoff, but it is not the same kind of trade off as "a scourge having a resource mechanic to manage skills." Not making a distinction between the two, basically means you can justify the design of anything by just saying it's an opportunity cost, which isn't constructive. 

 

Another example, I can just say that, "Playing Elementalist, is a tradeoff because I could be playing Necromancer." Which is valid, but it's not constructive to what we need to talk about which are mechanics...that need to be designed better. 

How do Virtuoso and Willbender not have class mechanic specific tradeoffs? Have you seen their profession skills?

[Genesis.5169]

This thread has aged badly with the last beta for people just reading or haven't played the beta.

[phixion.9428]

On 9/25/2021 at 3:49 AM, DaZeeHero.5210 said:

The biggest reason GW1 was in many ways mechanically better than GW2 is it was made in an era before gaming had become so corrupted by big corporate CEOs who have never played games in their life calling the shots.

 

Games are always better when the decisions on what goes into the game are made by people who understand said game, devs who are also gamers and love the game they work on.

Dunno, i think CmC proves quite well that making ex player of a game to a dev of said game isn't the way to go either, just as he proves that being a player doesn't necessary mean having clue about the game and all classes.

Being mainly a dev who plays the game unbiased and well for the purpose of understanding pvp and the classes or being an ex one trick pony player becoming a dev for whatever weird reasons is already a big difference.

Also the feedback devs tried to convince us they listened to before last beta must be some hidden pure pve discord server...

Edited January 16, 2023 by phixion.9428

[Swagg.9236]

Trade-offs and compromises are what forge tangible playstyles.  Getting everything the game has to offer just makes everybody different shades of the same gimmick.  The latter is what completely crippled GW2's potential as a video game with any sort of interactive depth.  Unfortunately, the damage is far too great at this point for any sort of reform to fix.  If you want a GW2 with any sort of deep gameplay, you just want a different video game.  Anybody arguing for any old, current or upcoming content to conform to the same paradigm that has served as GW2's slapdash foundation for "design" over its lifetime doesn't want a diverse and player-driven game; they just want to keep the shallow, plastic kiddy-pool that they've sat and splashed around in for the past 8 years.

[felix.2386]

On 9/21/2021 at 3:49 PM, mortrialus.3062 said:

Post megabalance population is lower than POF, with the top 250 dipping into Gold 3. 

cuz they can't fix nothing with only number changes.

and they didn't finish the mega balance.

 

the mechanics are extremely power creeped. daredevil will forever overpower core thief, unless they overbuff core thief in numbers to OPness.

mechanics needs to be nerfed so hard and pvp team can't do nothing about it, but adding some 300 second cd on some traits.

holo will forever overpower core engi etc.

these specs have minimum trade off for the rewards it gets. but they can't change anything, because anet has no idea what they are doing. you can easily remove all tool belt skills for holo forge..and then maybe core engi will be able to compete..just like they did with mechanist, which is good direction.

and like 70% of the healing support skills could be changed to single target based..

Edited December 14, 2021 by felix.2386