Re: Studio Update - Speculation on Future Specializations/Professions?

[Amarils.8916]

The way i see it they are release expansion lets say half the size of EoD and build on that sooner than what we had in the past so lets say you get the first 2 maps and 3 months later you get 2 new if you have the expansion and i really dont think they will stop adding Elite Specs they may not add it every expansion to get something different instead ( Tengu Playable )  and then add  some other specs later just to space a bit the release.

 

 

[Gibson.4036]

My guess is that they will continue to develop elite specs, but they won't be part of every mini-expansion. Hence the "new... combat features" catch-all. It could include new elite specs, but doesn't have to.

[Fueki.4753]

6 minutes ago, Gibson.4036 said:

My guess is that they will continue to develop elite specs, but they won't be part of every mini-expansion. Hence the "new... combat features" catch-all. It could include new elite specs, but doesn't have to.

For all we know "new combat" features can also simply end up being new enemy mechanics, or even as little as more uses for the special action key.

[Gibson.4036]

Just now, Fueki.4753 said:

For all we know "new combat" features can also simply end up being new enemy mechanics, or even as little as more uses for the special action key.

Totally. It's a nice, vague placeholder that lets them decide from mini-expansion to mini-expansion and say, "Here's what we promised!"

Special action key this time, gliding skill next year, hey, it's elite spec time the year after that!

I'm not holding my breath by any means, but there's a lot of room in "new... combat features" for them to decide along the way.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

New combat features could also be new weapons for core specs.

Or just new PvE masteries that give you PvE only weapons.

[zicaA.6841]

I think with these 2 simple things we could customize our gameplay in a way that new elite specs wouldn't be needed:

 

1. Add new weapon skills,  so we can configure our weapon skill bar (similar to utilities slots).

 

2. Design additional tier traits for the elites we already have. Like in (1) we could personalize it.

[Dadnir.5038]

7 hours ago, zicaA.6841 said:

I think with these 2 simple things we could customize our gameplay in a way that new elite specs wouldn't be needed:

 

1. Add new weapon skills,  so we can configure our weapon skill bar (similar to utilities slots).

 

2. Design additional tier traits for the elites we already have. Like in (1) we could personalize it.

So, all in all you want to go back to what they tried in 2013 before giving up because it made things even more complicated to balance? Well, it might happen, after all they are already gearing toward making the same mistake they did a few years ago so they can very well repeat more mistakes.

Maybe they will even try to re-introduce the stomping mechanic in PvE while they are at it...

 

If there is new e-specs, my bet would be more on specs that would not be profession's specific. Something like Falconry, Inquisitive or Horizon walker in DDO. There would probably be neither change to the core main mechanic nor new weapon though.

Edit:

This way, an "x-pac" bringing us back to maguuma could allow us to expand on the Itzel or Nuhoch mastery track and unlock mastery track tied e-specs. I believe the Itzel could offer a "scout" e-spec with a focus on mobility through various leaps. On another hand the Nuhoch could offer a "Stomper" spec with a focus on hard control.

An "x-pack" with a focus on helping Queen Jennah's army against the Haratiis could offer a mastery track that would lead us to unlock a "Vanguard" spec bringing new set of banners.

An "x-pack" with a focus on purging ascalon from it's ghosts and specters could lead to a "Ghostbuster" e-spec with a focus on mouvement restriction/traps.

... etc.

Such format would be lighter on the developement team all while providing "new gameplay" to all professions.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Dadnir.5038

[Grand Marshal.4098]

I personally would not want more lines or weapons for core. It would still play mechanically the same, sure I would have some fun theorycrafting the Elites a bit but it would be short-lived. 

3 new professions sounds very fun tho, but given how they rush to other MMOs for many spec ideas, I doubt they can make 3 new professions with their specs feel new. 

Very bored of the game's state rn. 

[zicaA.6841]

6 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

So, all in all you want to go back to what they tried in 2013 before giving up because it made things even more complicated to balance? Well, it might happen, after all they are already gearing toward making the same mistake they did a few years ago so they can very well repeat more mistakes.

Maybe they will even try to re-introduce the stomping mechanic in PvE while they are at it...

 

If there is new e-specs, my bet would be more on specs that would not be profession's specific. Something like Falconry, Inquisitive or Horizon walker in DDO. There would probably be neither change to the core main mechanic nor new weapon though.

Edit:

This way, an "x-pac" bringing us back to maguuma could allow us to expand on the Itzel or Nuhoch mastery track and unlock mastery track tied e-specs. I believe the Itzel could offer a "scout" e-spec with a focus on mobility through various leaps. On another hand the Nuhoch could offer a "Stomper" spec with a focus on hard control.

An "x-pack" with a focus on helping Queen Jennah's army against the Haratiis could offer a mastery track that would lead us to unlock a "Vanguard" spec bringing new set of banners.

An "x-pack" with a focus on purging ascalon from it's ghosts and specters could lead to a "Ghostbuster" e-spec with a focus on mouvement restriction/traps.

... etc.

Such format would be lighter on the developement team all while providing "new gameplay" to all professions.

 

There's nothing "hard to balance". Its just wepons skills and traits. There's no new elite mechanic that has to sinergise with core traits, there no new set of utilities skills, there's no new weapon. If u think ANET can't balance these simple things while sell us new xpac u should leave this game lol....

[Dadnir.5038]

25 minutes ago, zicaA.6841 said:

If u think ANET can't balance these simple things while sell us new xpac u should leave this game lol....

Because you think they do a great job at balancing? They don't even manage to be thorough when they announce a wave of change in a hyped tone. They left rotting trait providing small instance of invulnerability for 3 whole years. It took them 8 years to allow flesh golem to be available underwater. For 3 years now, they've been constantly promising us that they would look at hard CC case by case to fix the 0.01 coefficient that they've given them. Since HoT release they tell us from time to time that they will "make combo great again". There is more than 20 traits actually that have 0 use in underwater content and are tied to utilities or weapons despite the fact that they wanted this to change more than 8 years ago. The last balance patch was supposed to rid us of the trait that reduce CDs and there are still plenty of them... etc.

[Moradorin.6217]

If new professions means things like they will create Mirage in PoF then decide its too good later and rather than balance it's ambush attacks or dps per clone, etc they chose removed a dodge from Mirage BUT only in pvp/wvw leaving an inconsistent number of dodges when you change modes, which seems like the worst balance effeort in the history of the game.

Next, seemingly to justify the poor choice to remove a dodge from Mirage in wvw/pvp Anet designed Vindicator as a one dodge in all 3 modes spec which then people didnt like becuse it felt so odd even when designed for one dodge. (some ppl liked not most) So what do they do?? They give Vindicator a 2nd dodge and even mention Mirage's other dodge.

 

So now Vindicator the EoD ($$) spec has two dodges in all 3 modes even tho it should only have ever had one in all 3 and Mirage is STILL missing a dodge in wvw/pvp and never got its ambush skills, dodge animation, timing or ANYTHING reworked to make it function correctly with one dodge or two.

When I consider how they dealt with Mirage so far and now Vindicator I would say Anet is just bad at Spec design and the balance team is totally incompetent.

 

No new specs, They still cannot seem to fix the current specs. I mean seriously. Im not even trolling this is basic facts.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Moradorin.6217

[zicaA.6841]

20 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

Because you think they do a great job at balancing? They don't even manage to be thorough when they announce a wave of change in a hyped tone. They left rotting trait providing small instance of invulnerability for 3 whole years. It took them 8 years to allow flesh golem to be available underwater. For 3 years now, they've been constantly promising us that they would look at hard CC case by case to fix the 0.01 coefficient that they've given them. Since HoT release they tell us from time to time that they will "make combo great again". There is more than 20 traits actually that have 0 use in underwater content and are tied to utilities or weapons despite the fact that they wanted this to change more than 8 years ago. The last balance patch was supposed to rid us of the trait that reduce CDs and there are still plenty of them... etc.

I think they've changed the way they release game content precisely to fix some mistakes they've made in the past. With smaller xpac and no living world they will have more time to polish and balance the game. And to be honest, I agree with yours complaints, but I think they're doing a good job. Right now, we have the widest variety of builds in the game that we've ever had before. 

[Skyroar.2974]

On 3/6/2023 at 10:31 PM, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

New combat features could also be new weapons for core specs.

This.

New core weapons are probably easier/faster to design and balance for than new elite specs (no need to create utility skills, new trait trees, new profession mechanics), while also being impactful enough to make expansions exciting.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Skyroar.2974

[draxynnic.3719]

1 hour ago, Skyroar.2974 said:

This.

New core weapons are probably easier/faster to design and balance for than new elite specs (no need to create utility skills, new trait trees, new profession mechanics), while also being impactful enough to make expansions exciting.

The problem is that this is pretty much exactly the thinking that led them into trouble in GW1. A bunch of new skills for existing professions are relatively easy to design and balance... until people start combining them and start finding overpowered combinations. Elite specs were an answer to this problem: they don't need to consider how features from one will combine with another because that just won't happen.

Now, there are a couple of professions that I think definitely need another core weapon, but I don't think another core weapon per profession per miniexpansion is going to be sustainable.

[Caid.4932]

They could do it every other or every 3rd expansion.

I'm still quite enjoying the EoD specs, i could go another 18 months+ without more to be honest. Think most of them could do with a couple more balance passes or more in the case of specter for instance. Think its similar with mirage to be honest and the firebrand changes probably need some attention.

I'd rather they shave off some rough edges on whats there than add more at this point. Give it a year and it'll probably be more enthusiastic about new specs. Maybe it chews up a lot of design time on an expansion but i dont think they'd need much else to sell it.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Caid.4932

[Skyroar.2974]

On 3/8/2023 at 2:52 AM, draxynnic.3719 said:

The problem is that this is pretty much exactly the thinking that led them into trouble in GW1. A bunch of new skills for existing professions are relatively easy to design and balance... until people start combining them and start finding overpowered combinations. Elite specs were an answer to this problem: they don't need to consider how features from one will combine with another because that just won't happen.

Now, there are a couple of professions that I think definitely need another core weapon, but I don't think another core weapon per profession per miniexpansion is going to be sustainable.

There's a large difference between a selection of over 100 skills (or 1000 when accounting for secondary classes) or a selection of over 10 weapon combinations, though. Different weapons in GW2 are basically different playstyles. Make each of them focus on damage, support, control or self-defense. Double that amount by having them deal either power or condition damage. Then further double that by making them either ranged or melee. And either 2H, 1H or OH on top of that. You could basically have far more playstyles than the amount of weapon types this game will ever have, without breaking it out of control, simply because the difference between many of them would be stuff like slightly stronger melee vs. slightly weaker ranged, or condi healer vs. power healer, or 1H power burst vs. OH power burst.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Skyroar.2974

[VocalThought.9835]

With the game having 3 elites for each profession over 10 years, they could do more of the same. Come out with elite specializations every 2-3 years. I think they can only do a total of 5 elites per profession anyway, which I'm totally fine with. They may want to focus on other things, like maybe pvp racial skills, or new mount attack skills where you can stay mounted while in combat. They can add housing, improve their personality system to add diplomacy game play to have more immersive role-playing. Add an A.I. companion system and new pvp battle modes.

 

[Raykael.2734]

This roadmap is nothing but a joke. They are going to charge more for LW that used to be basically free with a bit of timing. And they are even too lazy (or maybe just don't care enough) to come out with new elite specs. It's finally time people, game is dead and they're trying to squeeze the last drops before moving on. Time to find something new.

[Batalix.2873]

I think there is juuuuuust about enough design space for one last set of especs. Some archetypes generally are wanting: a support Mesmer (or bard), a support Warrior (or tactician), a blasty ranged Ele, an archmage-y Revenant, a "summoner" big-beast Ranger, a "gambler"/"swashbuckler" Thief, maybe an athlete spec. They could squeeze out nine solid, distinct archetypes, but past that, and assuming they hit on as many classic archetypes as possible, I don't see much design space remaining.

 

I also think that trickling out 2-3 especs every year would be a very savvy way of maintaining player interest through this new model. It would create consistent anticipation/expectations/speculation for at least a few years.

 

We are not getting new weapons--too much disparity in skin options, and not really much they can add as far as mechanical niches. We also are not getting new professions, same issue of disparity of especs and not much remaining design space that can't be covered by the existing professions. If either of these expansions of the system are even on the table, the amount of investment they require almost certainly pegs them for inclusion in a fresh new GW3 engine designed with them in mind.

[draxynnic.3719]

Eh. I think there's a lot more concepts that can be made into elite specialisations than just one per profession. But they wouldn't want to commit to a full set every year or anything crazy like that, and there's a degree to which some professions already have a lot of roles covered so more elite specs will result in overlap in role.

[Fueki.4753]

7 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

Eh. I think there's a lot more concepts that can be made into elite specialisations than just one per profession. But they wouldn't want to commit to a full set every year or anything crazy like that, and there's a degree to which some professions already have a lot of roles covered so more elite specs will result in overlap in role.

As we can see with all of Warrior's elite specializations being most effective as melee power damage, Arenanet has literally no issues with having elite specializations overlapping in their roles, so that's no barrier when designing them.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Fueki.4753

[draxynnic.3719]

39 minutes ago, Fueki.4753 said:

As we can see with all of Warrior's elite specializations being most effective as melee power damage, Arenanet has literally no issues with having elite specializations overlapping in their roles, so that's no barrier when designing them.

 

Yeah, warrior is one of my biggest reasons for saying that it would be grossly unfair for ArenaNet to stop producing elite specialisations now.

I think there's a degree to which people thinking that ArenaNet won't release elite specialisations that overlap in role... just haven't been paying attention. The mantra right at the beginning was "any profession can fulfil any role, your choice of profession is more about choosing a playstyle and theme than a role". Obviously, they've never actually met that target, but they've recently reaffirmed that that's the goal, and if it was to be achieved, that'd mean at least nine different ways to fill any role you can think of. And that might not just be the obvious ones, but also some of the more obscure things like hand kiting, pylon kiting, and so on. Once you've got nine ways to fill a role already, how much does it really matter if any given profession ends up doubling up? Mesmer already does with the alacrity role...

The usual argument is that "one will always be the best". In the strictest sense, this is technically true, but will the same one always be the best for every instanced PvE encounter, let alone open world and competitive modes? Probably not, since mechanics that are highly valuable in one place might be weak in another. Furthermore, as long as the difference is small enough that you're nor significantly handicapping the team by taking a weak option, does it really matter if one build is 2% more effective than another? Not unless you're looking to set records or you're already looking at a marginal chance of success. But it might matter to the player who dislikes or for some reason just can't adapt to Build A, but really enjoys and has mastered Build B.

 

[Batalix.2873]

On 3/17/2023 at 3:32 PM, draxynnic.3719 said:

Eh. I think there's a lot more concepts that can be made into elite specialisations than just one per profession. But they wouldn't want to commit to a full set every year or anything crazy like that, and there's a degree to which some professions already have a lot of roles covered so more elite specs will result in overlap in role.

 

Eh I don't think there are many strong archetypes left to pull from before designs start to feel kind of arbitrarily retrofitted around the new weapon. I'd argue we already saw some of the walls developers would come up against in EoD with concepts like Willbender, Untamed, and Vindicator stretching to justify themselves. Not to mention Catalyst being terribly derivative and unfocused as a concept. And that's not even addressing the mechanical problem of whether classes actually implemented the unique weapon choice well, which I firmly disagree with on Bladesworn and Mechanist.

 

The game has 27 especs. Most classic job fantasy archetypes have been very clearly hit on. We have: Hunter, Scholar, Ninja, Berserker, Magebane/Breaker, Samurai, Summoner, Amazon, Dragoon, Druid, Blue Mage, Monk, Sniper, Assassin, Machinist, Conjurer, Golemancer, Time Mage, Illusionist, Psion, Dark Knight, Dark Priest, Chemist, Weathermancer, Spellblade/Red Mage, Shaman/Geomancer, and some Poisoncloud Thumper thing.

 

These are (generally) not just arbitrary weapon+profession combinations, these are holistic archetype designs. And while I can maybe rattle off close to nine different archetypes distinct from what we have--Bard, Gambler/Corsair, Blood Mage, Frost Mage, Summoner, Cannoneer, Spiritcaller--even those I can't be confident would substantially add to the roster or even be feasible within GW2's existing design. I struggle to see two whole especs for each profession, and in some cases like Engineer and Guardian I'm not even sure how feasible one new espec is.

 

Yes, the devs could start Frankensteining classes from the remaining pieces of design space, but I would argue (a) they already have to some extent, which can't go on forever, and (b) that would and has resulted in a drop in quality of espec design.

[draxynnic.3719]

3 hours ago, Batalix.2873 said:

 

Eh I don't think there are many strong archetypes left to pull from before designs start to feel kind of arbitrarily retrofitted around the new weapon. I'd argue we already saw some of the walls developers would come up against in EoD with concepts like Willbender, Untamed, and Vindicator stretching to justify themselves. Not to mention Catalyst being terribly derivative and unfocused as a concept. And that's not even addressing the mechanical problem of whether classes actually implemented the unique weapon choice well, which I firmly disagree with on Bladesworn and Mechanist.

It amuses me that in another thread you based an argument on "there are 27 well-realised elite specialisations, if you can't find one you like in that group, you should find another game", and now you're basing an argument on listing several that you don't consider to be well-realised.

I could address each of those individually, but the overall argument you're making here is "ArenaNet made some bad elite specs so that means they're running out of ideas", so I'll address that directly rather than arguing over the quality of individual specs:

ArenaNet went from "we don't need an expansion, we have the saga" to release in two years (and that's with a significant delay), let alone finalising and unveiling the elite specialisations. We also know they were under a lot of pressure in this period - as shown by the fact that they also felt the need to cut most of the second half of Icebrood Saga. They probably had to finalise the designs for the elite specialisations in a short enough timeframe that it's probably not really representative of what they could do if they had instead, say, decided at the end of 2021 that they wanted to release a new set of elite specialisations in 2025.

(I think another factor is that they insisted on elite professions that fit into the Canthan theme, which could mean that some themes that could have been stronger were passed over in favour of something that was Canthan-themed but perhaps a little weak conceptually.)

The argument that they've already covered the entire concept space that could be practically used for elite specialisations just doesn't hold up. I explained in a response to you elsewhere how some important functions have been completely missed by the current elite specialisations for some professions - the most pressing being elementalist lacking any ranged espec and warrior lacking any espec that isn't just another way of doing DPS, but those are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There have been more proposals for new concepts than ArenaNet can realistically make, so there's no lack of ideas. Heck, there are still some concepts from the original Guild Wars that could be ported into Guild Wars 2 mechanics that haven't been. I notice that you seem to be drawing your analogues mostly from Final Fantasy (some of which are absolutely terrible analogues - spectre is assassin? Really?), but just because Final Fantasy hasn't done something doesn't mean it can't be done.

Edited March 25, 2023 by draxynnic.3719

[otto.5684]

I am not sure what Anet meant with their statement, except we should not expect new elites next expansion. But what will we get? Who knows. If it is nothing there will be a riot 😆

Edited March 25, 2023 by otto.5684