Weaponmaster training is a BAD idea

[Panda.1967]

1 hour ago, Ashen.2907 said:

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

Not even remotely true. Two options can be distinct yet equivalent. The goal is to have them distinct in their parts while totaling out to be equivalent.

to put it into simple math terms you see the only solution to be 1+=2, when it should be 1+3=4 && 2+2=4. Two distinct equations of equivalent value.

hm… now if only there was a way to have uniquely distinct parts to our weapons that can all total up to an equivalent total compared to a similar weapon… oh wait… we do… each skill does something different… each can provide different utilities that may be more valuable to some than to others… different boons and conditions… different cooldowns and damage values… these variables can be leveraged to create equivalent weapons with uniquely distinct parts.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Panda.1967

[Batalix.2873]

2 hours ago, Panda.1967 said:

Not even remotely true. Two options can be distinct yet equivalent. The goal is to have them distinct in their parts while totaling out to be equivalent.

to put it into simple math terms you see the only solution to be 1+=2, when it should be 1+3=4 && 2+2=4. Two distinct equations of equivalent value.

hm… now if only there was a way to have uniquely distinct parts to our weapons that can all total up to an equivalent total compared to a similar weapon… oh wait… we do… each skill does something different… each can provide different utilities that may be more valuable to some than to others… different boons and conditions… different cooldowns and damage values… these variables can be leveraged to create equivalent weapons with uniquely distinct parts.

MMOs have repeatedly shown that when you give players options, they pick the thing that clears/grinds faster. They pick the ability that increases DPS. That is either straight DPS, things that buff DPS enough to compensate enough for not being DPS, or otherwise the bare minimum necessary to keep the DPS alive (because 1 HP doing DPS is still better than being dead and doing no DPS).

Players will always try to reduce the game down to this. Always. So really the primary aim of a developer is to find ways to design the game that prevent players from optimizing the systems until they get bored of monotony. Put another way, it is quite literally the developers' job to *thwart* players' ability to "solve" the game with the most optimal strategy. The more decisions/choices the more complexity, the more noise, the more gatekeeping of stats behind content, the harder it is to solve and the more likely the players will have to (a) never perfectly solve the meta and likely (b) settle for as many solutions are realistically expected, balancing player time/skill/investment.

GW2, like we would expect from a good MMO, has a lot of that. Or at least will have had a lot of that. Lots of gear/slot choices with different utilities and effects, lots of slightly better/alternative things available through various content modes, a decent number of conditions/boons (albeit imo not enough to sustain 27 especs), a lot of movement-and-position-based combat, and in theory kits that are designed to respond to a high variance in skill. But the underlying principle behind all of this is that these distinctions are *artificial* and (even if it is disguised) *restrictive*.

If a player could just interchange one for the other without investment or payoff, a lot of the complexity of the puzzle would go away because counterbalancing features like availability or exclusivity would already have been removed/solved for them. This is partly what makes especs work in the first place--working within the same profession *under different constraints than the other especs*.

So really doesn't matter if your general impression is that weapons are "roughly equivalent". There are only ever going to be two natural conclusions to this "everyone gets weapons because 'choice'":

1) The weapons turn out to be almost imperceptibly, *exactly* equivalent (or repeatedly have unique features/imbalances trimmed away until they are), leading to them all feeling like arbitrary aesthetic differences and ultimately non-choices. FFXIV is a very good example of this.

2) The weapons turn out to be quite non-equivalent, in which case the players will have an extremely easy time solving which is better, and the meta will narrow. Thus illustrating that maybe the artificial barriers that restricted those weapons only to certain contexts (their espec) actually added to the game's engagement rather than detracted from it.

Giving players options is not the amazing thing people think it is. Most games don't even do it because players would get bored, instead they put in the work and design problems for the players. Unless a game has an extremely robust engine and novel ideascape for players to build their own experience from (Minecraft, Sims, Mario Maker, BotW/TotK, Besieged/Nuts and Bolts), a game is generally not going to get very far putting "experience development" into the hands of the players. And I definitely don't think GW2 has the capacity in the slightest, not as it currently exists.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[Gibson.4036]

On 6/30/2023 at 8:47 AM, 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…

Some of these things are fairly recent.

I used staff on bounding dodger daredevil through the entire story, and only stopped beginning of last year due to a bakance patch. It was crazy survivable and fun to use.

I used axe on Mirage up until the “I hate axe” Solar balance patch because Staff used to be the safe Mirage weapon, but Axe did more damage.

Warhorn was a good for tempest OW for a while promoted by a streamer… can’t remember if it was Muk or WP.

Mechs used mace before the patch that made Rifle ridiculous.

Haven’t played my FB in a while, but it’s OW build used axe when I did.

My point being, these things may be true currently, but they haven’t been for the life of each espec.

[Ashen.2907]

2 hours ago, Panda.1967 said:

Not even remotely true. Two options can be distinct yet equivalent. The goal is to have them distinct in their parts while totaling out to be equivalent.

to put it into simple math terms you see the only solution to be 1+=2, when it should be 1+3=4 && 2+2=4. Two distinct equations of equivalent value.

hm… now if only there was a way to have uniquely distinct parts to our weapons that can all total up to an equivalent total compared to a similar weapon… oh wait… we do… each skill does something different… each can provide different utilities that may be more valuable to some than to others… different boons and conditions… different cooldowns and damage values… these variables can be leveraged to create equivalent weapons with uniquely distinct parts.

I get where you are coming from, but in my experiece, in order for two such options to be truly equal in a practical manner they would end up needing to be essentially identical...reskins of eachother. I happen to play certain freeform build TTRPGs where this is the case. Everyone's abilities are just renamed, differently described, versions of the same thing. It works well for balance, but everyone is using the same exact attacks...just described differently. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but it does lose something.

[Panda.1967]

50 minutes ago, Ashen.2907 said:

I get where you are coming from, but in my experiece, in order for two such options to be truly equal in a practical manner they would end up needing to be essentially identical...reskins of eachother. I happen to play certain freeform build TTRPGs where this is the case. Everyone's abilities are just renamed, differently described, versions of the same thing. It works well for balance, but everyone is using the same exact attacks...just described differently. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but it does lose something.

Its not about making them identical though… the only thing that must be the same is the potential DPS… how each weapon gets to that DPS can be very different, what utilities each weapon offers can be as different as night and day. To an extent we actually have many weapons balanced this way already, when comparing a Power weapon to a Condi weapon for the same profession, many of them have roughly the same potential DPS.

ANet knows how to balance these things and they have actually done it quite a few times, so give them this opportunity to do it again. Use this beta event to give them feedback about overpowered combinations… point out the problems that exist and let them address them. 

I know… asking people to put faith in ANet listening to feedback is like asking people to tell a brick wall to move out of their path… but thats because people frequently give them feedback that they either can’t or simply won’t act on and expect them to drop everything and do what they said. Feedback they can use and often do act on are numbers issues… if Warhorn is performing as the top Power offhand for Elementalist, then show them the numbers and given them a comparison with other power offhands for Elementalist. Show them that there is a problem to be fixed. You expect them to put in the effort, then you should put in the effort to.

[Ashen.2907]

5 minutes ago, Panda.1967 said:

Its not about making them identical though… the only thing that must be the same is the potential DPS… how each weapon gets to that DPS can be very different, what utilities each weapon offers can be as different as night and day. To an extent we actually have many weapons balanced this way already, when comparing a Power weapon to a Condi weapon for the same profession, many of them have roughly the same potential DPS.

ANet knows how to balance these things and they have actually done it quite a few times, so give them this opportunity to do it again. Use this beta event to give them feedback about overpowered combinations… point out the problems that exist and let them address them. 

I know… asking people to put faith in ANet listening to feedback is like asking people to tell a brick wall to move out of their path… but thats because people frequently give them feedback that they either can’t or simply won’t act on and expect them to drop everything and do what they said. Feedback they can use and often do act on are numbers issues… if Warhorn is performing as the top Power offhand for Elementalist, then show them the numbers and given them a comparison with other power offhands for Elementalist. Show them that there is a problem to be fixed. You expect them to put in the effort, then you should put in the effort to.

Potential DPS is a very sticky thing though. A profession or build that has the same potential DPS, but which 95% of players are incapable of executing to that level is not equal to another build that has the same potential DPS via AA chain and hitting a few skills off of cooldown.

[Panda.1967]

Just now, Ashen.2907 said:

Potential DPS is a very sticky thing though. A profession or build that has the same potential DPS, but which 95% of players are incapable of executing to that level is not equal to another build that has the same potential DPS via AA chain and hitting a few skills off of cooldown.

Difference in player skill shouldn’t be seen as a factor in balance… skill should always be an external factor that can give one an edge over someone else.

that said… if a weapon can do its top DPS with just AA spam… then something needs to be adjusted (glares at Mesmer Staff ambush skill… that thing is overdue for a nerf…)

[Ashen.2907]

38 minutes ago, Panda.1967 said:

Difference in player skill shouldn’t be seen as a factor in balance… skill should always be an external factor that can give one an edge over someone else.

that said… if a weapon can do its top DPS with just AA spam… then something needs to be adjusted (glares at Mesmer Staff ambush skill… that thing is overdue for a nerf…)

Difference in player skill, perhaps not, but complexity of the build itself absolutely in my opinion.

[Knighthonor.4061]

Shield on Revenant never made sense as a Elite Spec weapon for Herald. It never gets used as such. But when paired with Vindicator, its useful.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

13 hours ago, Batalix.2873 said:

Players will always try to reduce the game down to this. Always. So really the primary aim of a developer is to find ways to design the game that prevent players from optimizing the systems until they get bored of monotony. Put another way, it is quite literally the developers' job to *thwart* players' ability to "solve" the game with the most optimal strategy. The more decisions/choices the more complexity, the more noise, the more gatekeeping of stats behind content, the harder it is to solve and the more likely the players will have to (a) never perfectly solve the meta and likely (b) settle for as many solutions are realistically expected, balancing player time/skill/investment.

GW2, like we would expect from a good MMO, has a lot of that. Or at least will have had a lot of that. Lots of gear/slot choices with different utilities and effects, lots of slightly better/alternative things available through various content modes, a decent number of conditions/boons (albeit imo not enough to sustain 27 especs), a lot of movement-and-position-based combat, and in theory kits that are designed to respond to a high variance in skill. But the underlying principle behind all of this is that these distinctions are *artificial* and (even if it is disguised) *restrictive*.

If a player could just interchange one for the other without investment or payoff, a lot of the complexity of the puzzle would go away because counterbalancing features like availability or exclusivity would already have been removed/solved for them. This is partly what makes especs work in the first place--working within the same profession *under different constraints than the other especs*.

So really doesn't matter if your general impression is that weapons are "roughly equivalent". There are only ever going to be two natural conclusions to this "everyone gets weapons because 'choice'":

1) The weapons turn out to be almost imperceptibly, *exactly* equivalent (or repeatedly have unique features/imbalances trimmed away until they are), leading to them all feeling like arbitrary aesthetic differences and ultimately non-choices. FFXIV is a very good example of this.

2) The weapons turn out to be quite non-equivalent, in which case the players will have an extremely easy time solving which is better, and the meta will narrow. Thus illustrating that maybe the artificial barriers that restricted those weapons only to certain contexts (their espec) actually added to the game's engagement rather than detracted from it.

Giving players options is not the amazing thing people think it is. Most games don't even do it because players would get bored, instead they put in the work and design problems for the players. Unless a game has an extremely robust engine and novel ideascape for players to build their own experience from (Minecraft, Sims, Mario Maker, BotW/TotK, Besieged/Nuts and Bolts), a game is generally not going to get very far putting "experience development" into the hands of the players. And I definitely don't think GW2 has the capacity in the slightest, not as it currently exists.

So everything you said here, makes me wonder why we have ever argued on other threads...cause literally everything you said here is 100% right up until the final paragraph on this sentence...

"Giving players options is not the amazing thing people think it is."

I just don't get how you drew up that conclusion based on what you said, because options, is exactly what makes the maze more complex so long as these options do things that aren't trivial like Skill A : Do 500 damage and Skill B : Do 600 damage.

the problem with gw2 is the ladder, not the former. The skills in this game are bland and easy to figure out and min max them. Options themselves have nothing to do with that...in fact their involvement in all this, is that more options always makes the problem harder to solve... just like how a math problem like 15 + 32 + 10 is easier to solve in a quicker time then 51+32+18+19+1+13+17+34+27+67... more options just increase the maze regardless of the fact so i don't know why you bring up that options are the problem, it's simply not true bro. 

It's about what skills do, their mechanics and how those behave, how their designed and whether players can easily minmax their behavior, not the presentation of options.

Edited July 2, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Batalix.2873]

2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

So everything you said here, makes me wonder why we have ever argued on other threads...cause literally everything you said here is 100% right up until the final paragraph on this sentence...

"Giving players options is not the amazing thing people think it is."

I just don't get how you drew up that conclusion based on what you said, because options, is exactly what makes the maze more complex so long as these options do things that aren't trivial like Skill A : Do 500 damage and Skill B : Do 600 damage.

the problem with gw2 is the ladder, not the former. The skills in this game are bland and easy to figure out and min max them. Options themselves have nothing to do with that...in fact their involvement in all this, is that more options always makes the problem harder to solve... just like how a math problem like 15 + 32 + 10 is easier to solve in a quicker time then 51+32+18+19+1+13+17+34+27+67... more options just increase the maze regardless of the fact so i don't know why you bring up that options are the problem, it's simply not true bro. 

It's about what skills do, their mechanics and how those behave, how their designed and whether players can easily minmax their behavior, not the presentation of options.

Well I appreciate that but yeah we still will fundamentally disagree on that point. I think a game that is designed from the ground up for player-driven and created content would be designed with a large number of free-form mechanics and tools, to the point that permutations become so expansive that "solutions" just kind of devolve into "possibility space". Older MMOs like GW1 and FFXI were kind of like that, at least as much as character build out goes.

More recent MMOs like GW2 and FFXIV abandoned that nightmare of balancing for more focused, developer-constrained archetypes. Maybe early GW2 had more freedoms with the weapon/spec/slot system, but (1) even those freedoms were much more limited and compartmentalized than GW1, and (2) they have become even more rigidified as the espec system has evolved.

The game for years now has been doubling down on overall fewer player choices in exchange for very focused, flavorful job fantasies. That is years of *not* introducing more free-form skills that would help build out and define that sort of game.

Where you are getting hung up on us that a freeform versus a dev-restricted game are affected differently by "opening things up". A freeform game just gets more options and complexifies the problem and potential solutions. A game with very focused and dev-restricted problems/puzzles introducing more solutions *without introducing, either inherently or concurrently new complexity and problems*, just simplifies the existing problems/solutions and undermines player engagement. "Opening options up" is not a universally expansive and choice-increasing thing in all contexts.

As an example: say you play angry birds, which designs per-level how many birds and of which type you get for each problem. The challenge is to solve the problem just with just those tools, it is a dev-constructed and restrained problem. But give the player the opportunity to use whichever birds they want, and a substantial amount of challenge is lost. For sturdier structures they will always just pick all big bomb birds with a lot of impact (I'm somewhat guessing at the functionality, I don't really play angry birds). For sprawling structures they will always pick the yellow birds that split. What were previously thought optimization puzzles were mostly obviated by removing the dev constraints. "Opening up" the game reduced the strategy engagement and pushed it substantially toward just thoughtless, empty clicking.

And we are seeing this happen in GW2 already in the mastery beta. Whereas previously the constraints of GW2's "puzzle" required Scourges needed to figure out *which* core MH weapon they wanted, and Harbingers needed to figure out which core OH weapon they wanted, now there's virtually no problem to solve. There is a single optimal strategy for both. The game's core weapon kits, and fairly limited condi/power binary combined with increasingly devalued support aspects, does not *create* more options with this change: it *condenses* them.

(And yeah you can argue this opens up "job fantasy" for players, being able to live out a greatsword Renegade or whatever. But given how distinct the aesthetics are for each weapon and how they are one of the few central defining features of especs, I think at best we are arguing it is a wash because job archetypes are equally being broken down to give players that.)

And yes you can hope for the possibility of a LOT of balancing reimplementing more actual choices. But that's not the state of the game now and hasn't been for years, and the necessary changes are massive. The recent dev team has not really been indicating that they have a good grasp or even desire to undertake that sort of feat when they barely want to develop any new systems or features and reused animations for the totality of EoD specs. To me, basing this "opening up" on distant potential amounts to a lot of unearned optimism.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[Panda.1967]

48 minutes ago, Batalix.2873 said:

The game for years now has been doubling down on overall fewer player choices in exchange for very focused, flavorful job fantasies. That is years of *not* introducing more free-form skills that would help build out and define that sort of game.

What… so you want them to turn it into something like FF14 where you have no choices? Would you like them to force all Scrappers to use only hammer? All Weavers to be Sword/Focus? Every Virtuoso to only have Dagger/Pistol?

Sure balancing would be easier… but you throw player agency out the window with that. You said before that you think this change reduces build diversity… but what you seem to he pushing here would straight up kill build diversity… are you so blinded by balance issues that you can’t see what this change is really doing?

[Batalix.2873]

43 minutes ago, Panda.1967 said:

What… so you want them to turn it into something like FF14 where you have no choices? Would you like them to force all Scrappers to use only hammer? All Weavers to be Sword/Focus? Every Virtuoso to only have Dagger/Pistol?

Sure balancing would be easier… but you throw player agency out the window with that. You said before that you think this change reduces build diversity… but what you seem to he pushing here would straight up kill build diversity… are you so blinded by balance issues that you can’t see what this change is really doing?

Don't misrepresent me with hyperbole, please.

What I am saying is that the espec system was like a *better* version of FFXIV that was more robustly bolstered and therefore more *likely* (not guaranteed, just likely) to stave off oversimplification and homogenization for far longer than FFXIV managed to do. Where, for the concession of having an exclusive weapon that synergized with the espec mechanic and skills, we had 27 distinct playstyles that were virtually never guaranteed to overlap and become what FFXIV is now: something between 3-5 roles/kits that all play the same. The delineation of especs in GW2 made it much harder for players to find available equivalents and complain for changes for "viability" since each class had an "identity" and (thanks largely to GW2 really avoiding discussion about roles, could plead ignorance as to exactly what GW2 "roles" even are) "role". What is Scourge? Is it a necro with some benefits? Is it a fully separate dark priest class? Is it a healer? Is it a DPS? As long as Scourge had these arbitrary things that Necro did not have, a lot of that didn't matter: it was understood to be nonfungible with every other class.

Removing weapon exclusivity breaks down that distinction. It is one step closer to just having especs be "options" rather than "requirements" for class identity. It is moving toward consolidating the classes back down to 9 professions instead of 27 especs, which in addition to the alac/quickness changes is removing a LOT of differentiation across both axes. This is just starting the slow slide toward homogenization.

I actually liken these changes not to FFXIV's weapons, but to their skills. Used to be that a lot of the skills that comprise role kits were only available to individual classes. Things like provoke and addle were not role-specific, until enough players clamored for "balance" that every tank or healer was given it automatically. First more and more things become available to more and more classes, then the really distinct features become practically mandatory, then are just made universally available (see: boon creep). And then, when most of the functional diversity has been erased, players continue to complain about small inequities because of course they do--Astrologian's random card draws are too inconsistent, Samurai's crit bursts are too inconsistent for damage, flanking is too inconsistent on Monk. FFXIV almost totally got rid of DoT damage because one single, failed 48-man mode that they never bothered to replicate again was hitting the limit--does that remind anyone of this whole alac/quickness change and a single Soo-Won fight that players repeatedly complained about "consistency"?

Opening availability of anything that has the potential to be "preferred skills" on all three especs of a profession is just going to make it easier for players to compare, complain, and over time erase all the other options. This applies to weapons too. It is not a devastating change by itself (at this stage, it falls more in "pretty bad, lazy, and myopic"), but it is a change in the wrong direction and will only invite more "streamlining" changes in the future. It is taking the easy, FFXIV way out of development by *breaking down* distinct jobs and parting them out to "give players what they asked for" instead of *reinforcing* those jobs and putting in actual dev work to preserve them.

For some people who have always viewed especs as mere "flavors" or even their own "bad decision", I imagine this return to core profession focus is totally fine. I personally think the game has evolved too far past that attitude and into espec-driven identity for this to be anything but destructive.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[Batalix.2873]

For additional context:

I left FFXIV and joined this game a couple years ago specifically because FFXIV had eroded away all of its prior class distinctions in favor of "accessibility" and "balance". Weapon choice, meaningful stat/armor choice, elemental damage typing, weapon damage typing, prep skills, proc skills, class-specific skills, healer identity and dps variety, tank identity and overpowered self-sustain, DoT skills, flanking bonuses, even the very point of a crit stat as well as any ability, buff, or cooldown length that did not totally align with the group's synchronized two-minute rotation. All totally removed or reduced down to a paltry attack or two in otherwise totally homogenous kits. If you looked at the sheer depth of design when (critically acclaimed) Heavensward released versus now, where the game nowadays is just a dodging minigame as you try to play your rigid, DDR rotation in step with 7 other people. Half the roles are obviated when tanks do sizeable DPS and have enough self-sustain to clear content solo when the healers and DPS are dead, and a ranged mage is a better rezzer than the healers. And the damage tuning and player agency is so restrictive that there is only marginal difference between learning your rotation or just facetanking on any DPS class--the only real buffs come with said 8-man DDR synchronization, which is poor incentive to learn any class when there is only one way to play high-end content.

I chose GW2 because the espec system seemed built out enough that I figured it might avoid going down the same route, or at least not do so for a long time. But I think that time is approaching, and to a large extent I think my impressions were mistaken. I thought IBS a rough patch and EoD a return to form, and that the problems the clearly rushed EoD specs presented would just be massaged out and the game would continue as normal.

In actually, the IBS, EoD and now SotO are definitely part of a continuum, and what we are actually seeing is a dev team that is almost totally different from those that developed GW2 in its prime. One that isn't as sure of what to *do* with what they were handed, doesn't have the same perspicacity and overarching vision that the HoT/PoF devs had, nor the same creativity and drive that a once-newer game might have motivated the company to invest real development into. A team that needs to meet corporate quarterly goals and is settling on doing that by wantonly shifting around and recycling existing assets instead of continuing to build the game out.

Nearly every major feature of SotO is going to cause systemic problems for the game's evergreen content, and I say this as someone who, absent context, would not mind additional skyscale features or new open world leggies, or even this half-rune rework.

* An easy skyscale with leyline gliding and combat is going to decimate HoT and PoF engagement. When it is/was a difficult to obtain prestige mount, there were at least plenty of reasons for players to obtain and engage with gliding and the core PoF mounts. Now it can obviate both HoT as a reason to get glider mastery, as well as PoF to get any of the other mounts, not to mention heavily discourage purchase and participation in PoF/LWS4 maps.

* Open world leggy armor is the final nail in the coffin for raids, since now they offer nothing unique except a very expensive leggy trinket (which in turn encourages more PoF/LWS4 participation). Also, whatever impact skyscale had on PoF that it didn't have on HoT, this makes up for it by cutting out a large reason for players to grind HoT metas and populate that content.

* The rune fix, apart from being only a half-fix that leaves us with six duplicative slots and now no real benefit to having six instead of one, is also going to further kill a lot of motivation to run dungeons, since a lot of very strong runes were locked behind that content.

This whole weaponsmaster thing is just more of that. Underconsidered, desperate "streamlining" of the game that is going to kill of a LOT of what makes it work. If this is really where the devs want to be going, they need to stop flashing their shiny kittens at us and back all this up with actual development and problem solving, because they are blowing this game wide open and have given no indication that they have any idea of how to keep it all together.

Taking these changes at face value, and *just* these changes, not any mystical grand solutions the devs may be hiding from us (after several years, I am not holding my breath), the game is going to have so many maps turn into *deserts*, with likely the narrowest meta it has seen since HoT.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, Batalix.2873 said:

 "Opening options up" is not a universally expansive and choice-increasing thing in all contexts.

See no, that's incorrect. The only time where it's not really true, is when the options are homogenous (because when all options do the same thing, it doesn't matter how many there are, the choice is superficial.) But for all cases it is true.

I proved this for guild wars 2 specifically, years ago...and honestly it's a universally held truth everywhere outside this game (it's pretty common knowledge)...i mentioned this before on another thread, but it is the same reason as to how your computer works, or how the alphabet works...More permutations, more combinations = larger possibility space. Possibility space has a bias towards heterogenous states than homogenous states and therefor for all cases, diversity increases.

More options is not the only parameter for determining the size of the game complexity...it's like mentioned earlier, what the skills actually do (the rules that they follow, their mechanics) and with how many things options can potentially interact with, effect the complexity space.

For example... You have a skill A, that only be used with skill B and not skill's C - Z, opens up just 1 combination (A with B).

But when A can combine with B - Z, then that's 26 combinations you can now make with A (A and B, A and C, A and D and so on...)

There is no proof you could ever in principle construct, in which adding an element to a set that gets permuted, will ever give you less combinations. That's just obvious sense. So every time you ever say this, it's just flat out wrong and that's why understanding math/science in this kind of discussion is important.

 

Quote

The game for years now has been doubling down on overall fewer player choices in exchange for very focused, flavorful job fantasies. That is years of *not* introducing more free-form skills that would help build out and define that sort of game.

And see this would be fine if those fewer elements actually did interesting and novel behaviors but they do not. Whether you believe this or not, diversity in the game increases with every additional ESPEC...but just like the example written above, if the ESPEC allows you to interact with only 1 set of traits, or 1 set of skills or whatever the story is, then you are gimping the complexity space, and the game is therefor easy to solve. So you saying we should have less options is a walking contradiction to your own statement about the solvability of the game state.

Edited July 2, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Batalix.2873]

17 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

See no, that's incorrect. The only time where it's not really true, is when the options are homogenous (because when all options do the same thing, it doesn't matter how many there are, the choice is superficial.) But for all cases it is true.

I proved this for guild wars 2 specifically, years ago...and honestly it's a universally held truth everywhere outside this game (it's pretty common knowledge)...i mentioned this before on another thread, but it is the same reason as to how your computer works, or how the alphabet works...More permutations, more combinations = larger possibility space. Possibility space has a bias towards heterogenous states than homogenous states and therefor for all cases, diversity increases.

More options is not the only parameter for determining the size of the game complexity...it's like mentioned earlier, what the skills actually do (the rules that they follow, their mechanics) and with how many things options can potentially interact with, effect the complexity space.

For example... You have a skill A, that only be used with skill B and not skill's C - Z, opens up just 1 combination (A with B).

But when A can combine with B - Z, then that's 26 combinations (A and B, A and C, A and D and so on...)

There is no proof you could ever in principle construct, in which adding an element to a set that gets permuted, will ever give you less combinations. That's just obvious sense. So every time you ever say this, it's just flat out wrong and that's why understanding math/science in this kind of discussion is important.

 

And see this would be fine if those fewer elements actually did interesting and novel behaviors but they do not. Whether you believe this or not, diversity in the game increases with every additional ESPEC...but just like the example written above, if the ESPEC allows you to interact with only 1 set of traits, or 1 set of skills or whatever the story is, then you are gimping the complexity space, and the game is therefor easy to solve. So you saying we should have less options is a walking contradiction to your own statement about the solvability of the game state.

Your proof is an imperfectly defined model that treats all options as equal and context as irrelevant and universal. As I have repeatedly laid out. Your "proof" is roughly as useful as arguing evolutionary "fitness" only depends on the inherent traits of a species and not their interactivity, nor the environment in which they exist and with which they interact, nor any real accounting for even basic emergent/abstracted phenomena such asgame theory that nullify/deprioritize large swathes of permutation possibility-space like "winner-take-more".

I'm not debating this anymore. Your approach is unnuanced, oversimplified, and exists purely in a theoretical space which does not at all come close to describing and predicting the real thing. It is, quite frankly, bad science.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

Just now, Batalix.2873 said:

Your proof is an imperfectly defined model that treats all options as equal and context as irrelevant and universal. As I have repeatedly laid out. Your "proof" is as useful as arguing evolutionary "fitness" only depends on the inherent traits of a species and not their interactivity, nor the environment in which they exist and with which they interact, nor any real accounting for game theory and even basic phenomena that nullify large swathes of permutation possibility-space like "winner-take-more".

I'm not debating this anymore. Your approach is unnuanced, oversimplified, and exists purely in a theoretical space which does not at all come close to describing and predicting the real thing. It is, quite frankly, bad science.

Lol that’s rich. The science is called Complex Systems for a reason…it was made specifically to model and talk about things that are not simple but complex like gw2.

[Batalix.2873]

Just now, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Lol that’s rich. The science is called Complex Systems for a reason…it was made specifically to model and talk about things that are not simple but complex like gw2.

Complex systems are only as good as they are modeled. I say your model is blatantly ignoring too much to be useful.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 minutes ago, Batalix.2873 said:

Complex systems are only as good as they are modeled. I say your model is blatantly ignoring too much to be useful.

Again another cop out answer, but for anyone that’s wants actual facts go and look up Game Complexity again another research field stemming from complex systems specifically for making meaningful statements about game state size

Dont wanna hear it from me fine, let a game designer tell you themselves

 

[Batalix.2873]

7 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Again another cop out answer, but for anyone that’s wants actual facts go and look up Game Complexity again another research field stemming from complex systems specifically for making meaningful statements about game state size

Dont wanna hear it from me fine, let a game designer tell you themselves

 

Oh yes, one designer's opinions from 20 years ago before we started to really see the effects of massive internet gamesmanship of systems in mainstream online games. And he designed SimCity, which is a solo sandbox builder experience of the type I have described for the likes of Minecraft, BotW/TotK, Mario Maker, and YES I even mentioned the Sims. None of which remotely come close to GW2's curated class system.

I'm not responding to you anymore. You are attempting to shoehorn GW2 into a universal (and in some respects outdated) design framework that (a) doesn't exist and (b) definitely does not apply to GW2. Not every good idea, including Will Wrights, can perpetually function as a template for everything.

Bad. Science.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 minutes ago, Batalix.2873 said:

Oh yes, one designer's opinions from 20 years ago before we started to really see the effects of massive gamesmanship of systems in online games. And he designed SimCity, which is a solo sandbox builder experience of the type I have described for the likes of Minecraft, BotW/TotK, Mario Maker, and YES I even mentioned the Sims. None of which remotely come close to GW2's curated class system.

I'm not responding to you anymore. You are attempting to shoehorn GW2 into a universal (and in some respects outdated) design framework that (a) doesn't exist and (b) definitely does not apply to GW2. Not every good idea, including Will Wrights, can perpetually function as a template for everything.

Bad. Science.

20 years ago you mean when games were good and not cash cow empty husks? Lol

Will Wright is a respected designer…its foolish to say what you said. Either way, these are universal principles held by many people not just him (hence the wiki articles) But again another cop out because you were shown that your statement was contradictory and have nothing to back up what you said.

Edited July 2, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Batalix.2873]

10 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

20 years ago you mean when games were good and not cash cow empty husks? Lol

Will Wright is a respected designer…its foolish to say what you said. Either way, these are universal principles held by many people not just him (hence the wiki articles) But again another cop out because you were shown that your statement was contradictory and have nothing to back up what you said.

1) Yes, games are not developed or played the same as they were 20 years ago, in large part due to the internet, so why you are trying to apply old theories? Do we even know if Wright still holds that perspective or maybe has new insights? Or that other people who are equally versed have new insights? Because I assure you new insights abound regarding how different the gaming industry is from the simple, quaint charm development principles had back then.

2) He is respected, I respect him. Pretty sure I implied that. I think it is a foolish appeal to authority to think that any ideas that are that old in an industry and world that has changed a LOT still hold universally true.

3) I have backed up what I said with my experience watching another game slide down the slippery slope of questionable design decisions. There are plenty of other games that serve as real-world examples for why the kind of development mentality GW2 is exhibiting now will likely not take it anywhere good. You are the one who provided a "permutations exist" argument as your sole "backing up". I am not worried about how grounded my perspective is in face of that.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

12 minutes ago, Batalix.2873 said:

2) He is respected, I respect him. Pretty sure I implied that. I think it is a foolish appeal to authority

You refused to accept blatantly obvious logic i presented. I then provided citable sources which you again ignored. Then I supplied a lecture from a professional which is yet another reputable source that you ignored again. You clearly have no idea how citation works.

Quote

to think that any ideas that are that old in an industry and world that has changed a LOT still hold universally true.

These are not just from this industry, these are universally held principles from science, that get applied to games. That is why I am able to talk about things like computers, like the alphabet because they are of the same branches of science. None of it has changed, these things were established in the 1930's - 1970's starting with pioneers of computation science like Alan Turing. They are still the same today.

Quote

3) I have backed up what I said with my experience watching another game slide down the slippery slope of questionable design decisions. There are plenty of other games that serve as real-world examples for why the kind of development mentality GW2 is exhibiting now will likely not take it anywhere good. You are the one who provided a "permutations exist" argument as your sole "backing up". I am not worried about how grounded my perspective is in face of that.

"backed up with my experience" in other words means you have no evidence to back up the conclusions you're making. 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Panda.1967]

1 hour ago, Batalix.2873 said:

3) I have backed up what I said with my experience watching another game slide down the slippery slope of questionable design decisions. There are plenty of other games that serve as real-world examples for why the kind of development mentality GW2 is exhibiting now will likely not take it anywhere good. You are the one who provided a "permutations exist" argument as your sole "backing up". I am not worried about how grounded my perspective is in face of that.

You're delusional if you think that's the direction GW2 is going... GW2 was headed in a bad direction before with the way they were designing especs... this change is a major turn in the right direction.

Is it some miracle fix to all the problems created by the current system? No... but it's the first steps required to correct those mistakes.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Panda.1967

[Dante.1508]

I think all classes should use all weapons.