Weaponmaster training is a BAD idea

[Doggie.3184]

Makes the game more like GW1.

[Ashen.2907]

5 hours ago, Panda.1967 said:

You act as if most players don’t just straight up ignore the espec weapons anyways… how many times do you see a Mirage with an Axe? Never, they all use Staff exclusively… what about a reaper with greatsword? Most of them use scepter/focus and staff for better access to chill and fear… Tempest with warhorn? Most would rather use staff for greater range, better support, better AoE, and stronger ST… for a long time Scrappers only ever used Rifle… I never seen a Daredevil actually using staff, its always been Sword/Dagger + Shortbow… Firebrands seem to prefer Scepter over Axe… Mechanists prefer pistol or rifle over mace… then there are the Holosmith and Specter who are completely crippled if they don’t use their espec weapon…

I see reaper with greatsword quite frequently. More than any other weapon available to them.

Mirage with axe seems popular.

I see mech with mace used by people (including me) quite often.

I see DD with staff often.

I see condidps FB with axe too.

[Batalix.2873]

7 hours ago, Panda.1967 said:

You act as if most players don’t just straight up ignore the espec weapons anyways… how many times do you see a Mirage with an Axe? Never, they all use Staff exclusively… what about a reaper with greatsword? Most of them use scepter/focus and staff for better access to chill and fear… Tempest with warhorn? Most would rather use staff for greater range, better support, better AoE, and stronger ST… for a long time Scrappers only ever used Rifle… I never seen a Daredevil actually using staff, its always been Sword/Dagger + Shortbow… Firebrands seem to prefer Scepter over Axe… Mechanists prefer pistol or rifle over mace… then there are the Holosmith and Specter who are completely crippled if they don’t use their espec weapon…

I main axe mirage, and I greatly resent staff mirage. So, counterpoint but also total agreement.

But Weaponmaster training is still a very bad idea. Everyone in this thread claiming that especs are defined by traits or mechanics and not weapons is being disingenuous: weapons--some more than others--are definitely defining features of especs as well. And it is these artificial boundaries between especs (traits, mechanics AND weapons) that has maintained a fairly broad and diverse meta. The more those boundaries are broken down, the more the game's meta will threaten to collapse down to a much narrower set of builds.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[StarPT.7431]

17 hours ago, Dante.1508 said:

I don't agree op more choices are better, i'm so sick of the min/max mindset.

Although I do agree the more choices the better, the min/max mindset wont go away. There will be a better option out of them all, there always is.

[Batalix.2873]

56 minutes ago, StarPT.7431 said:

Although I do agree the more choices the better, the min/max mindset wont go away. There will be a better option out of them all, there always is.

The min/maxing will get worse without the game implementing artificial barriers like espec-specific weapons. We are going to see at least a few professions consolidate down to the best weapons, and are already seeing that happen with sword/WH Ele and pistol/torch Necro, and if they don't they want to run hammer or greatsword. Axe and dagger are still duking it out on Mesmer but they are the clear meta choices. Engi specs are wanting to only run hammer or mace.

I would argue only Warrior is going to come out of this mostly untouched. Torch and pistol are so situational, and while MH dagger is a nice option it's different than axe or mace.

[StarPT.7431]

6 minutes ago, Batalix.2873 said:

The min/maxing will get worse without the game implementing artificial barriers like espec-specific weapons. We are going to see at least a few professions consolidate down to the best weapons, and are already seeing that happen with sword/WH Ele and pistol/torch Necro, and if they don't they want to run hammer or greatsword. Axe and dagger are still duking it out on Mesmer but they are the clear meta choices. Engi specs are wanting to only run hammer or mace.

I would argue only Warrior is going to come out of this mostly untouched. Torch and pistol are so situational, and while MH dagger is a nice option it's different than axe or mace.

Well, it's obvious that this needs some balancing done...I mean, it's not like they will let pass the fact people are parsing 50k on sword/wh weaver.

Plus, not every build in a class can be locked into the same weapons.

[Batalix.2873]

5 hours ago, StarPT.7431 said:

Well, it's obvious that this needs some balancing done...I mean, it's not like they will let pass the fact people are parsing 50k on sword/wh weaver.

Plus, not every build in a class can be locked into the same weapons.

Oh obviously they will try to balance it, but I think we are looking at two likely scenarios, possibly at the same time or consecutively:

1) They continue to experience major issues balancing a monstrosity that has only gotten more monstrous with this change.

2) They finally manage to "balance" everything, but in the process instead of having 27 especs that all have roles/niches, we will have maybe 3-4 preferred builds across entire professions. "Professions" will be the new "espec" base unit, and the diversity of the game will have been largely boiled back down to nine job fantasies instead of 27.

Frankly, I don't care for either state. And I think if they had taken the time to properly give the EoD specs another pass, give them proper skill animations, more dynamic traitlines, clearer job fantasies, and generally downtuned their DPS and utility to be more in line with HoT/PoF specs, that would have taken far less effort and angst than this continuous state of turmoil that has existed as they try to do anything but that.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[Ashen.2907]

2 minutes ago, Batalix.2873 said:

Oh obviously they will try to balance it, but I think we are looking at two likely scenarios, possibly at the same time or concurrently:

1) They continue to experience major issues balancing a monstrosity that has only gotten more monstrous with this change.

2) They finally manage to "balance" everything, but in the process instead of having 27 especs that all have roles/niches, we will have maybe 3-4 preferred builds across entire professions. "Professions" will be the new "espec" base unit, and the diversity of the game will have been largely boiled back down to nine job fantasies instead of 27.

Frankly, I don't care for either state. And I think if they had taken the time to properly give the EoD specs another pass, give them proper skill animations, more dynamic traitlines, clearer job fantasies, and generally downtuned their DPS and utility to be more in line with HoT/PoF specs, that would have taken far less effort and angst than this continuous state of turmoil that has existed as they try to do anything but that.

This.

There seems likely to be no more diversity in high end build options after this and likely fewer.

[StarPT.7431]

8 minutes ago, Batalix.2873 said:

2) They finally manage to "balance" everything, but in the process instead of having 27 especs that all have roles/niches, we will have maybe 3-4 preferred builds across entire professions. "Professions" will be the new "espec" base unit, and the diversity of the game will have been largely boiled back down to nine job fantasies instead of 27.

To be fair that's kinda the way it currently is.

[Batalix.2873]

2 hours ago, StarPT.7431 said:

To be fair that's kinda the way it currently is.

Not quite. Kinda, but the especs do still offer some artificial barrier to try to separate certain identities/roles. Different limitations on traits and weapons. I know a lot of people think the espec system is limiting, and a lot of other people think it hardly exists, but oftentimes a lot of complexity, choice and balance in games comes from very simple lines being drawn like that.

I mean, look at how little of a distinction the three armor classes are. They have very small stat differences, but otherwise are a categorization that artificially inflates armor grinding/choice from one legendary set to three, and one crafting job to three. Without that, endgame would involve much less time/resource investment but also not much of a player decision-making (as simple as choosing between three comparables is), and similarly crafting would feel much less dimensional.

Yes, I know MMOs have a really bad habit of creating artificial categories just to increase grind time, and GW2 is no exception. But also most MMOs would be kind of boring if a lot of their core systems were boiled down to singular tracks with not even simple decision-making options. That's what a lot of game design *is*--manufactured problems.

[Ultramex.1506]

If Anet is going to separate elite spec and elite weapon, can they put in effort equally? Weaver hammer got more dual attack yet Holosmith heat bonus  still don't affect other weapon, and sword lost the bonus  without Holosmith.

[Panda.1967]

18 minutes ago, Ultramex.1506 said:

If Anet is going to separate elite spec and elite weapon, can they put in effort equally? Weaver hammer got more dual attack yet Holosmith heat bonus  still don't affect other weapon, and sword lost the bonus  without Holosmith.

Elementalist Hammer didn’t actually get a dual attack for Weaver… it got skill icon art… no tooltip… and no actual dual attack skill… all the did was just make it double cast the original #3 skill using both attuned elements… if you already have an orb for one of your attuned elements it simply casts the skill for the other element instead…if you have both orbs, it’s just the Grand Finale skill as usual. it’s not a dual attack, its a bandaid meant to hide the lack of a dual attack… of course no one was surprised by them doing this, it’s exactly what a few of us theorized they would do back at the start of EoD if they ever were to remove the spec lock. Mesmer and Warrior are the only classes that they put any amount of real effort into for this feature… Mesmer Dagger gained an Ambush skill and Warrior Dagger gained a Primal Burst… that is all… and both of them are super lack luster too…

Edited July 1, 2023 by Panda.1967

[StarPT.7431]

1 hour ago, Batalix.2873 said:

Not quite. Kinda, but the especs do still offer some artificial barrier to try to separate certain identities/roles. Different limitations on traits and weapons. I know a lot of people think the espec system is limiting, and a lot of other people think it hardly exists, but oftentimes a lot of complexity, choice and balance in games comes from very simple lines being drawn like that.

I mean, look at how little of a distinction the three armor classes are. They have very small stat differences, but otherwise are a categorization that artificially inflates armor grinding/choice from one legendary set to three, and one crafting job to three. Without that, endgame would involve much less time/resource investment but also not much of a player decision-making (as simple as choosing between three comparables is), and similarly crafting would feel much less dimensional.

Yes, I know MMOs have a really bad habit of creating artificial categories just to increase grind time, and GW2 is no exception. But also most MMOs would be kind of boring if a lot of their core systems were boiled down to singular tracks with not even simple decision-making options. That's what a lot of game design *is*--manufactured problems.

Except not really, that artificial barrier is not there, not in the way you're trying to make it appear. If espec X is worse than espec Y and Z for a certain role, it just wont be used no matter the weapons....you wouldn't really bring a power tempest over a power weaver/cata....yet still it seems that the warhorn is good offhand for power, but that alone isn't enough to pick that espec over the others.

[Phage.9203]

I disliked the idea at first but then I realized I've been wanting this for a long time 😄
Some specs suffer from not having certain options. 
Let's just hope they can focus on making the traits and utilities feel unique and useful enough to keep the identity intact. 

[Dante.1508]

8 hours ago, Doggie.3184 said:

Makes the game more like GW1.

Agreed and i loved my Bow wielding Assassin. She was so fun.

[Batalix.2873]

15 minutes ago, StarPT.7431 said:

Except not really, that artificial barrier is not there, not in the way you're trying to make it appear. If espec X is worse than espec Y and Z for a certain role, it just wont be used no matter the weapons....you wouldn't really bring a power tempest over a power weaver/cata....yet still it seems that the warhorn is good offhand for power, but that alone isn't enough to pick that espec over the others.

I didn't say that the barriers were particularly strong or well-respected, and I believe I did emphasize that weapons are just one of several discrete facets of that. But having them there still encouraged more diversity than we will now that they are gone.

[Panda.1967]

13 hours ago, Batalix.2873 said:

But having them there still encouraged more diversity than we will now that they are gone.

You can’t encourage diversity by restricting options… which of these options do you think encourages more diversity?

option 1) you can pick between 3 weapons, one is power, one is condi, and one is support.

option 2) you can pick between 6 weapons, two are power, two are condi, and two are support.

spoiler… its option 2.
 

what we have atm is option 1 + 3 specializations each with 1 more weapon choice… but the specialization and weapons don’t always line up… sometimes the spec is support focused with a power or condi weapon…

Edited July 1, 2023 by Panda.1967

[Batalix.2873]

52 minutes ago, Panda.1967 said:

You can’t encourage diversity by restricting options… which of these options do you think encourages more diversity?

option 1) you can pick between 3 weapons, one is power, one is condi, and one is support.

option 2) you can pick between 6 weapons, two are power, two are condi, and two are support.

spoiler… its option 2.
 

what we have atm is option 1 + 3 specializations each with 1 more weapon choice… but the specialization and weapons don’t always line up… sometimes the spec is support focused with a power or condi weapon…

That's a falsely confined system you are defining.

What it actually looks like is:

1) one espec can pick between several weapons, some mix of power, condi, and support, with an exclusive weapon that no other espec can use to ensure it has at least one opportunity at a unique weapon niche.

2) every espec can pick between the same weapons, including those that afforded other especs those unique niche opportunities.

It wasn't much of a system, but it at least compartmentalized some parts of professions into thirds so that a lot of the newer weapon designs wouldn't become obligatory if overpowered. Like every Necro condi only running pistol/torch or every Ele running sword/warhorn.

This is going to be and will continue to be a balancing nightmare, and when the dust has all settled, if it ever does, I guarantee the meta will be narrower for it.

[Linken.6345]

1 hour ago, Panda.1967 said:

You can’t encourage diversity by restricting options… which of these options do you think encourages more diversity?

option 1) you can pick between 3 weapons, one is power, one is condi, and one is support.

option 2) you can pick between 6 weapons, two are power, two are condi, and two are support.

spoiler… its option 2.
 

what we have atm is option 1 + 3 specializations each with 1 more weapon choice… but the specialization and weapons don’t always line up… sometimes the spec is support focused with a power or condi weapon…

Still people will pick apart what option is better of the 2 power/2 condi/2 support weapon options and those 3 will be the only viable ones.

And if you dont have that kick and search for someone that have the proper weapons/traits.

Then the people who dont enjoy the best weapons will come on the forum and whine that the weapons they prefer is useless and ask for buffs.

[Ashen.2907]

3 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

Still people will pick apart what option is better of the 2 power/2 condi/2 support weapon options and those 3 will be the only viable ones.

And if you dont have that kick and search for someone that have the proper weapons/traits.

Then the people who dont enjoy the best weapons will come on the forum and whine that the weapons they prefer is useless and ask for buffs.

This.

The closer to freeform a build system gets the fewer options exist at the top.

[Panda.1967]

1 minute ago, Linken.6345 said:

Still people will pick apart what option is better of the 2 power/2 condi/2 support weapon options and those 3 will be the only viable ones.

And if you dont have that kick and search for someone that have the proper weapons/traits.

Then the people who dont enjoy the best weapons will come on the forum and whine that the weapons they prefer is useless and ask for buffs.

If the weapons are out of balance to that degree then they absolutely should be rebalanced… either one needs buffs or the other needs nerfs… its called balance for a reason. Each weapon that fills the same niche should be sidegrade never an upgrade…

currently many espec weapons are clear upgrades and are in need of balancing. The current system required this. Espec weapons were deliberately designed to be superior to any other weapon that filled the same niche for that profession. This was done to maintain a sense of value for them. With weaponmastery this isn’t necessary anymore. 

Also, some professions (Engineer) only have one weapon for each niche even with their espec weapons…

9 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

The closer to freeform a build system gets the fewer options exist at the top.

Funny enough, thats kinda the ideal… just not in the way you meant with that statement… ideally there would be 0 options at the top as all options should be equivalent. When all options are equal, the concept of a top and a bottom choice cease to exist. A top choice implies unequality.

[Ashen.2907]

6 minutes ago, Panda.1967 said:

If the weapons are out of balance to that degree then they absolutely should be rebalanced… either one needs buffs or the other needs nerfs… its called balance for a reason. Each weapon that fills the same niche should be sidegrade never an upgrade…

currently many espec weapons are clear upgrades and are in need of balancing. The current system required this. Espec weapons were deliberately designed to be superior to any other weapon that filled the same niche for that profession. This was done to maintain a sense of value for them. With weaponmastery this isn’t necessary anymore. 

Also, some professions (Engineer) only have one weapon for each niche even with their espec weapons…

Funny enough, thats kinda the ideal… just not in the way you meant with that statement… ideally there would be 0 options at the top as all options should be equivalent. When all options are equal, the concept of a top and a bottom choice cease to exist. A top choice implies unequality.

Inequality is a requirement for agency. The only way to avoid it (and I am speaking solely of gaming builds here) is to deny players of any choice or agency. A player choosing greatsword specific traits while not having a greatsword will result in poor performamce.

[Hsanrb.1570]

On 6/30/2023 at 4:35 PM, Doggie.3184 said:

Makes the game more like GW1.

Only if that means I can steal any profs elite spec as my third... which sounds really cool but idk how imbalanced that would be not knowing what your opponent is from a glance.

[Panda.1967]

47 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

Inequality is a requirement for agency. The only way to avoid it (and I am speaking solely of gaming builds here) is to deny players of any choice or agency. A player choosing greatsword specific traits while not having a greatsword will result in poor performamce.

Inequality is not a requirement for agency. Choice is a requirement for agency. Two equal choices are still infact choices… also, two equal choices leads to greater agency than two unequal choices.

By what you have just said agency exists only with the illusion of choice. Sorry to break it to you, but that is not agency. Can agency exist with unequal choices? Yes, but not when the choices are clearly unequal.

if you give players a Choice between two weapons. One weapon does 10 damage and hits every 2 seconds, the other does 3 damage and hits every 1 second. With only these factors the first weapon is a no brainer and everyone takes it, the choice becomes an illusion. This choice could become a real choice with the addition of an extra factor though. If the player could have an ability that triggers per hit, then option 2 becomes more viable.

Inequality in agency only works when external variables can flip the choices. If one weapon is a clear top with all variables, or if the only variables when it isn't top are abysmally subpar, then that unequal option is not real agency.

[Ashen.2907]

8 minutes ago, Panda.1967 said:

Inequality is not a requirement for agency. Choice is a requirement for agency. Two equal choices are still infact choices… also, two equal choices leads to greater agency than two unequal choices.

By what you have just said agency exists only with the illusion of choice. Sorry to break it to you, but that is not agency. Can agency exist with unequal choices? Yes, but not when the choices are clearly unequal.

if you give players a Choice between two weapons. One weapon does 10 damage and hits every 2 seconds, the other does 3 damage and hits every 1 second. With only these factors the first weapon is a no brainer and everyone takes it, the choice becomes an illusion. This choice could become a real choice with the addition of an extra factor though. If the player could have an ability that triggers per hit, then option 2 becomes more viable.

Inequality in agency only works when external variables can flip the choices. If one weapon is a clear top with all variables, or if the only variables when it isn't top are abysmally subpar, then that unequal option is not real agency.

Only by denying someone the option to choose suboptimally can you ensure equality. Only by having 1 option are all optioms equal.