Weapons and Elite specs need a full rework for weaponmaster to work

[Imperial.8471]

I think we all saw the many big problems of making elite specialization weapons into core ones during this beta.

Some weapons are designed to work with their respective espec mechanics and are useless without them. Holosmith's sword bound to the heat mechanic is the best example. Virtuoso's Dagger being a weak power weapon without Virtuoso's blade traits like Jagged Mind is an other. Bladesworn's pistol is useful only to trigger Bladesworn's Fierce as Fire and Guns and Glory traits and is otherwise a weaker off-hand axe

Some elite specializations need their weapon to work well, like Specter and Virtuoso. Without the scepter, Specter will struggle generating Shadow Force for its shroud without all the torment from scepter. And if you decide to generate the Shadow Force from Traversing Dusk support trait instead, guess what is the only support weapon Specter has ? Virtuoso on the other hand relies heavily on blade skills to cause bleeding and vulnerability and generate blade clones for its shatters, and beside a couple greatsword skills, only dagger skills are blade skills, making Virtuoso dependent on its dagger

Some weapons on the other hand are mostly if not completely independant from their elite specialization. Vindicator's greatsword has no trait or mechanic related to its espec, making it possible to use for power Herald and Renegade. Renegade's shortbow is the same (losing only piercing). Harbinger's pistol. Scourge's torch. And since elite specializations are meant to be an improvement over core classes, their weapons are usually improvement over core ones. Meaning every power Revenant will take greatsword, every condi Necromancer will take pistol/torch.

This is why, for Weaponmaster Training to be a good addition and not the death of gameplay and balance, all weapons, espec and core, need to be reworked
-Core weapons  need to be boosted (or elite ones nerfed ?) to be made equal to elite weapons, and must be made usable by elite specialization mechanics. To take the example of Holosmith's heat system, all weapons should get additionnal effect at higher heat level. Rifle could get one extra shot for auto attack (like pre nerf), Blunderbuss get extra range, Jump Shot get a blast finisher at landing. With if necessary for balance nerfs to the "cold" levels on Holosmith's weapon skills
-Elite specialization weapons need to be made into real core weapons, their associated traits brought into core trait lines, and be uncoupled from their espec mechanics. When I say uncoupled, I mean the Holosmith's sword can still have a heat system when used by Holosmith, but must also be usable by Scrapper and Mechanist and work with their own mechanics. Virtuoso's dagger already has an ambush attack on Mirage in the beta, now all it needs is a way to inflict conditions on Mirage without Jagged Mind

This also means that elite specializations need to be reworked into being independant from their weapons. As mentionned before, Holosmith should get heat tiers from all weapons. Virtuoso have bladed weapons (sword, axe) be blade skills as well. Specter should get Shadow Force from any condition and not only torment. Mirage and Weaver seem a good examples of this. Both have a mechanic deriving from their class instead of their weapons (Mirage Cloak and dual attunement), that is then translated into any weapon they use (Ambush and Dual Attack). Such a rework could keep the uniqueness of each specialization by their mechanics while opening them to many new options by a wider range of fitting weapons, which is Anet's declared goal behind the Weaponmaster training.

Of course, all of this is wishfull thinking. The balance patch showed Anet is incapable of balancing/reworking its classes without completely destroying them, and the beta showed no sign they will do more than just removing restrictions on weapons. But I guess one can have hope until the release crushes them...

[Bomboed.5697]

I don't think that all weapons and e-specs require full reworks, but many of them require a lot of little improvements here and there.
However, yes, some specs need huge changes.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

It's a good opportunity, for them to do something interesting with the weapons and the Espec traits. To me, most weapons (and a lot of traits) are just bland : Do Damage, Do a Condi for 2 seconds...then every skill is like that on that set, and it amounts to nothing interesting. Even then I don't find these weapons more powerful than another, they just simply function against weapons that simply don't function. Function is a great first step, but its not the final step...they need to make weapons not only functional, like they should, but also do interesting things, not just damage and a condition that is just a damage modifier (lol). 

Vindicator GS Weapon is kind of like this : It functions as a weapon. But it does nothing interesting. Every skill boils down to just "dealing damage" and ultimately that's an issue.

In the same vein, you have the kinds of weapons like you said, with Holosmith or something, where things like its benefit from Heat mechanic were taken away, leaving the Sword with nothing more than just damage numbers...Putting it in roughly the same situation as Vindicator GS.

If you ask me, that's a design issue related to the poor design of e-specs. There's no reason that a weapon is ONLY good when you take a particular spec...that's not the case for core so why should it be for expo's right. 

[DarkCobalt.2849]

3 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Vindicator GS Weapon is kind of like this : It functions as a weapon. But it does nothing interesting. Every skill boils down to just "dealing damage" and ultimately that's an issue.

Well, this just isn't true. The Revenant GS brings survivability as it has a built-in channeled block on GS4 and is also the weapon with the most free-form mobility with GS3 being able to dash wherever the rev wants. The bigger issue is the core spec counterpart: Sword brings nothing to the table to GS doesn't already bring, as it has less mobility and a significantly less reliable survivability skill, while also doing less damage, so why do we ever want to run Sword? The only thing that would be a bit more CC I suppose. If they made it so Sword brought something like definitively better CC utility, then there would be enough of a reason to run Sword over GS. 

 

3 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

If you ask me, that's a design issue related to the poor design of e-specs. There's no reason that a weapon is ONLY good when you take a particular spec...that's not the case for core so why should it be for expo's right. 

You harbor some major misconceptions about the game's design. Core has plenty of examples of specific traitlines interacting with specific weapons (e.g. Warrior's Defense traitline and Hammer, Necro's Curses traitline and Scepter, Guardian's Zeal traitline and Greatsword, etc.). The interactions may not have been as deep or as in-depth as Elite spec traitlines and their respective weapons, but they exist nonetheless. This isn't inherently a problem with Core and Core weapons themselves because you can take them on any elite spec you want. The elite spec traitlines, however, cannot be taken on every spec yet the weapon will be available on every spec. It was originally fine to have Elite specs and weapons coupled together because generally speaking, that was also how Core was designed (again, many examples of 1 traitline 1 weapon), but now that philosophy is being broken and there's no direct easy solution to de-couple it. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by DarkCobalt.2849

[Drag You Down.2615]

5 hours ago, Imperial.8471 said:

This is why, for Weaponmaster Training to be a good addition and not the death of gameplay and balance, all weapons, espec and core, need to be reworked

Agreed. They are really adding much much more complexities here, which need some experienced and skillful game designers to review and make adjustments carefully. The current situation is, of course, absolutely not ok. 

But if they can really utilize this well, I can see a brighter future. This is a great, but extremely difficult path. 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, DarkCobalt.2849 said:

Well, this just isn't true. The Revenant GS brings survivability as it has a built-in channeled block on GS4 and is also the weapon with the most free-form mobility with GS3 being able to dash wherever the rev wants. The bigger issue is the core spec counterpart: Sword brings nothing to the table to GS doesn't already bring, as it has less mobility and a significantly less reliable survivability skill, while also doing less damage, so why do we ever want to run Sword? The only thing that would be a bit more CC I suppose. If they made it so Sword brought something like definitively better CC utility, then there would be enough of a reason to run Sword over GS. 

 

You harbor some major misconceptions about the game's design. Core has plenty of examples of specific traitlines interacting with specific weapons (e.g. Warrior's Defense traitline and Hammer, Necro's Curses traitline and Scepter, Guardian's Zeal traitline and Greatsword, etc.). The interactions may not have been as deep or as in-depth as Elite spec traitlines and their respective weapons, but they exist nonetheless. This isn't inherently a problem with Core and Core weapons themselves because you can take them on any elite spec you want. The elite spec traitlines, however, cannot be taken on every spec yet the weapon will be available on every spec. It was originally fine to have Elite specs and weapons coupled together because generally speaking, that was also how Core was designed (again, many examples of 1 traitline 1 weapon), but now that philosophy is being broken and there's no direct easy solution to de-couple it. 

I think you just didn't get what I was saying bro. a "block" is not an interesting mechanic...neither is making AOE's...these are functions that simply make the weapon useable, they aren't interesting or any different than any other weapon that generically does the same thing. Rev Sword ironically does the same kind of thing too as GS like you said...it does a little teleport skill, does a little aoe damage...it all just does damage and farts a boon for a couple seconds. There's no REAL novel differences between them, so when someone comes in, their going to just analyze their generic properties and min-max them : "Okay this does 1.5k damage, this does 1.8k damage" and then boom that's how you get a stale meta where nobody considers weapons that are slightly less good as another.

Real novel differences, is what makes someone choose skill X over skill Y... because skill X allows you to do something you couldn't really do with skill Y, and visa versa. Those novel differences are absent in many design elements of the game. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Drag You Down.2615]

4 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I think you just didn't get what I was saying bro. a "block" is not an interesting mechanic...neither is making AOE's...these are functions that simply make the weapon useable, they aren't interesting or any different than any other weapon that generically does the same thing. Rev Sword ironically does the same kind of thing too as GS like you said...it does a little teleport skill, does a little aoe damage...it all just does damage and farts a boon for a couple seconds. There's no REAL novel differences between them, so when someone comes in, their going to just analyze their generic properties and min-max them : "Okay this does 1.5k damage, this does 1.8k damage" and then boom that's how you get a stale meta where nobody considers weapons that are slightly less good as another.

Real novel differences, is what makes someone choose skill X over skill Y... because skill X allows you to do something you couldn't really do with skill Y, and visa versa. Those novel differences are absent in many design elements of the game. 

Lol, yes. That is actually a bit homogeneous. I have never noticed that. (Because I didn't think of using GS and dual S both on Vindicator.) They are eventually the same thing. Not different enough. Just like how FF14 is, same skill effects with different visual and name and very minor variations. 

I guess that's why they were moving ele's scepter to a complete offensive weapon to differentiate it with dagger and staff. Curious to see if the new pistol will be a clone of scepter on ele. They should really solve those problems in a nice way. 

[Jski.6180]

The given elite that was made for its weapon should use that weapon stronger then any other. Not all elite spec are made for there weapon. Not every thing needs to be the top use but they do all need to be functions.

[Batalix.2873]

On 7/1/2023 at 2:38 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I think you just didn't get what I was saying bro. a "block" is not an interesting mechanic...neither is making AOE's...these are functions that simply make the weapon useable, they aren't interesting or any different than any other weapon that generically does the same thing. Rev Sword ironically does the same kind of thing too as GS like you said...it does a little teleport skill, does a little aoe damage...it all just does damage and farts a boon for a couple seconds. There's no REAL novel differences between them, so when someone comes in, their going to just analyze their generic properties and min-max them : "Okay this does 1.5k damage, this does 1.8k damage" and then boom that's how you get a stale meta where nobody considers weapons that are slightly less good as another.

Real novel differences, is what makes someone choose skill X over skill Y... because skill X allows you to do something you couldn't really do with skill Y, and visa versa. Those novel differences are absent in many design elements of the game. 

The EoD spec weapons are especially disappointing as a matter of unique expression. Whereas most prior especs almost used their weapons as a completely different weapon (Scrapper lightning rod, Firebrand crook, Berserker smashy stick, mirage whirlygig, etc. etc.), most EoD weapons feel like how other professions would use them.

The worst are definitely Specter scepter (could have been a shadow-whip), WB sword (could have summoned a spirit or light wall or something),  Harbinger pistol (should have been the ST healing weapon tbh), and Vindicator GS (should have had a spear-throw). Even the others, Cata, Virt, BS, Mech don't really feel like they do much unique or push a particular class fantasy--Cata and Virt just feel like core profession weapons. Only Untamed really does something that feels holistically kind of different, and guess that obviously had to be castrated with the weaponsmastery change.

Previously I was really wanting the devs to go through and just redo the EoD weaponskills and traitlines to feel more distinct and faceted. But after SotO, who really kitten cares?

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[DarkCobalt.2849]

2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I think you just didn't get what I was saying bro. a "block" is not an interesting mechanic...neither is making AOE's...these are functions that simply make the weapon useable, they aren't interesting or any different than any other weapon that generically does the same thing. Rev Sword ironically does the same kind of thing too as GS like you said...it does a little teleport skill, does a little aoe damage...it all just does damage and farts a boon for a couple seconds. There's no REAL novel differences between them, so when someone comes in, their going to just analyze their generic properties and min-max them : "Okay this does 1.5k damage, this does 1.8k damage" and then boom that's how you get a stale meta where nobody considers weapons that are slightly less good as another.

Real novel differences, is what makes someone choose skill X over skill Y... because skill X allows you to do something you couldn't really do with skill Y, and visa versa. Those novel differences are absent in many design elements of the game. 

From my perspective, channeled block is actually something interesting on a weapon, not all specs and weapons have access to it and it can be used to abuse certain raid mechanics. Most immediate example is Deimos where you can block his Mind Crush where you otherwise normally would have to go into Saul's ward in the middle. This opens up an option to run Vindicator as an oil kiter on Deimos where they can stay out and greed for damage, or otherwise make the class an easy pick for Deimos CM without losing too much uptime. On Samarog CM, you can channel the block while standing in place to deny his knockback during the spear drop mechanic (last I remember the jumping dodge no longer works when the Vindicator is rooted). You can't do this with Sword, but in theory you could switch to Staff for a block but sacrifice a ton of damage in the process, so it's nice to have it on greatsword instead. Another good example is Temporal Curtain on Mesmer's Focus and how much QoL it brings to many raid and fractal encounters, it's insanely valuable and my raid team even finds it difficult to replace a Mesmer sometimes because of the pull functionality, and that's something you can't really judge based on damage output. There's also an argument to be made that CC in general is valuable and is enough to swing a decision on which weapon to take, e.g. Necro warhorn being almost useless outside of the fact that it provides the most CC in the off-hand slot.

But aside from the rather niche examples, otherwise I do agree, there really aren't many novel differences between the weapons. The saving grace originally was that (for most classes) the Core weapon options were intended to match one-to-one with playstyles, and elite specs offered a different take with some unique mechanics. Unfortunately Anet have walked themselves into a design trap, since now that we're blendering everything together there's far too many redundancies.. If they can't use the Elite spec traitlines and functions to make the weapons feel unique anymore because the weapons are supposed to be usable on every spec, then the game is at serious risk of getting completely homogenized. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by DarkCobalt.2849

[Suyheuti.1732]

1 hour ago, Jski.6180 said:

The given elite that was made for its weapon should use that weapon stronger then any other. Not all elite spec are made for there weapon. Not every thing needs to be the top use but they do all need to be functions.

I agree with that but Anet decided to remove that restrictions. If they remove, they should make it work with another especs or core. Otherwise this wouldnt be a thing than Anet’s “We are developing this game” propoganda to deceive the customers. 
If it was up to me, I wouldnt do that because they couldnt balance the game over the years, this patch will make it worse and they will try to balance over decate again and they couldnt do with less weapon, I dont have any hope they are able to balance it afterwards. 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, DarkCobalt.2849 said:

But aside from the rather niche examples, otherwise I do agree, there really aren't many novel differences between the weapons. The saving grace originally was that (for most classes) the Core weapon options were intended to match one-to-one with playstyles, and elite specs offered a different take with some unique mechanics. Unfortunately Anet have walked themselves into a design trap, since now that we're blendering everything together there's far too many redundancies.. If they can't use the Elite spec traitlines and functions to make the weapons feel unique anymore because the weapons are supposed to be usable on every spec, then the game is at serious risk of getting completely homogenized. 

Okay, If you're not already aware of what my stance is here, I'll just tell you straight up what it is right now. People use this word "homogenized" way to carelessly without knowing what it really means...like at all. I know, very deeply, about the subject, because I studied it academically, for four years, and like I stated on another thread, am largely responsible for bringing up this wording onto the forums...and if you were to check my comment history, I've talked about nothing else for those 4 years.

So now, I'm saying this directly: opening weapons is not a homogenization procedure...opening up options is in fact the only thing that is not a homogenization procedure, out of all the procedures I went through. I proved that mathematically a while ago now with an air-tight logic proof.

Now you can just believe me or just look through my comment history to see for yourself...but let me just leave you with an example/question.

Guild Wars 1 is near completely free-form in it's design. Do you think that game was ever at risk of being homogenous even though you had access to everyone else's weapons and skills? The answer is no, guild wars 1 was the opposite...it had a very diverse meta. The reason why, has everything to do, with the scientific definition that this word is embedded in, and when thrown around without that awareness, you lose meaningful ways to talk about the game.

I can completely understand why after seeing alacrity and quickness being homogenized, why you think opening weapons also means homogenization...but they simply are not the same procedure. The two procedures (opening combination, vs spreading what existing combinations do) exist in different mathematical spaces, and that is crucial to understanding homogenization as a problem...knowing what is an actual homogenization procedure and what isn't. Those things get proved by science and math not just loosy goosy gamer speak.

I say the above, with utmost respect man, so don't take it the wrong way. I'm asking you to just due your diligence because to people like me, who did their diligence (4 years of it) it's disrespectful. Treat the subject with some respect and know what you are talking about because people are WAY to easily swayed by BS flash mob campaigns rather than facts and logic. 

Edited July 2, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Batalix.2873]

4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Okay, If you're not already aware of what my stance is here, I'll just tell you straight up what it is right now. People use this word "homogenized" way to carelessly without knowing what it really means...like at all. I know, very deeply, about the subject, because I studied it academically, for four years, and like I stated on another thread, am largely responsible for bringing up this wording onto the forums...and if you were to check my comment history, I've talked about nothing else for those 4 years.

So now, I'm saying this directly: opening weapons is not a homogenization procedure...opening up options is in fact the only thing that is not a homogenization procedure, out of all the procedures I went through. I proved that mathematically a while ago now with an air-tight logic proof.

Now you can just believe me or just look through my comment history to see for yourself...but let me just leave you with an example/question.

Guild Wars 1 is near completely free-form in it's design. Do you think that game was ever at risk of being homogenous even though you had access to everyone else's weapons and skills? The answer is no, guild wars 1 was the opposite...it had a very diverse meta. The reason why, has everything to do, with the scientific definition that this word is embedded in, and when thrown around without that awareness, you lose meaningful ways to talk about the game.

I can completely understand why after seeing alacrity and quickness being homogenized, why you think opening weapons also means homogenization...but they simply are not the same procedure. The two procedures (opening combination, vs spreading what existing combinations do) exist in different mathematical spaces, and that is crucial to understanding homogenization as a problem...knowing what is an actual homogenization procedure and what isn't. Those things get proved by science and math not just loosy goosy gamer speak.

I say the above, with utmost respect man, so don't take it the wrong way. I'm asking you to just due your diligence because to people like me, who did their diligence (4 years of it) it's disrespectful. Treat the subject with some respect and know what you are talking about because people are WAY to easily swayed by BS flash mob campaigns rather than facts and logic. 

Guild wars 1, as far as I am aware, leant into freeform design very early on. There was an insane amount of modularity to kits: sub-professions, specializations, common skill factions, traits, fully slottable skills. There were certain limitations like weapon proficiency and profession skills, but on the whole most of the little details were highly modular so the game had to either sink or swim on that.

Guild Wars 2 is not that. Guild Wars 2 deliberately went away from that design for something that was more streamlined and railroaded into effectively fairly narrow dev-guided buildspace. Weaponskills are fixed and almost universally do not change--same five skills, all the time. The weapon options themselves were carefully curated so most professions only had access to a small subset of those five-skill sets. Slot skills are a lot narrower and fixed and encourage a particular playstyle: always a heal, always only get three utility slots at a time. Profession mechanics do not change at all except in three distinct and rigid ways. Runes and gear are largely just a lot of false choices.

Claiming that GW2 is designed in a way that opening up weapons affords the same kind of freedom GW1 did is laughably unnuanced. Maybe with a total overhaul where you could swap different weapons for each 1-5 slot, same for the 6-10, and the profession mechanics...maybe we would then remotely be approaching a model that would actually be designed for and benefit more arbitrary player choice. But GW2 has never been that game and certainly still is not that game today.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

8 hours ago, Batalix.2873 said:

Guild wars 1, as far as I am aware, leant into freeform design very early on. There was an insane amount of modularity to kits: sub-professions, specializations, common skill factions, traits, fully slottable skills. There were certain limitations like weapon proficiency and profession skills, but on the whole most of the little details were highly modular so the game had to either sink or swim on that.

You don't really know what you are talking. I played Guild Wars Franchise for 20 years. 

The things you named are vague enough to sound like they existed but they didn't. for example, there was no traits in guild wars 1, you just had attribute points and you invested points into professions attributes, and this increased the effectiveness of the skills associated with that attribute. The attributes didn't do anything themselves...they were just part of the skills system and how it worked. There was no weapon restrictions, or profession skills...you could use any skill from any class, and any weapon from any class, from the launch of the game, that's what it was built on...Enemies were designed to be just like players. So no it didn't "sink or swim" based on that...those were the CORE value functions of the game. 

In GW1 you picked a class, and then you picked a 2nd class from the other 9 classes, and you'd select skills to place onto your skill bar. All in all, It was a simplified version of guild wars 2. Guild Wars 2 was in fact made because people who played guild wars 1 wanted an upgrade to the game because it was so good but was tied to down in 2d space. Hence why guild wars 2 has the ability to jump around in 3d...people WANTED the things in guild wars 1 to be in guild wars 2. When gw2 dropped the ball at launch by not only not incorporating all the things people wanted from gw1 to be in gw2, like spectator mode, and capes or Hall of Heros...but worst of all bringing over and streamlining the shadowform meta, which was arguably thought to have been the worst design choice the franchise has ever made, to exist on nearly every mechanic in gw2.  Imagine taking the most toxic god mode button of gw1 and then building all the mechanics of your new game based on that...that's what guild wars 2 did.

The reason guild wars 2 even made the restrictions they did to class customization, was because A-net thought that by designing the classes with these kinds of tight restrictions, that the game would be easier to approach balance than guild wars 1...but it was the complete opposite that happened (go figure)...  here we are 11 years after launch.

Quote

Claiming that GW2 is designed in a way that opening up weapons affords the same kind of freedom GW1 did is laughably unnuanced.

Which now leads to this. The above I just mentioned is the nuance. I have 20 years of nuance and history watching the franchise grow and stagnate. I played both of these games at veteran level, so I get to see and make comparisons about how the two are similiar in their designs, and where they differ, and how to draw the differences that made gw1 good, and what makes gw2 bad.

Here is the nuance : Gw2 is just a highly restrained and botched version of Gw1 (and was all under the assumption that restraining things was going to make their job easier /laugh) but not only that, It's skills and systems are not designed good just in general. Even shadowform, the toxic god mode button, had a massive tradeoff to balance it's behavior. None of those dynamic tradeoffs are present in this game...speaking of tradeoffs, gw2 removed that aspect from guild wars 1 as well...and you wonder why the game is heavy attack spam and meta min-maxing.

You are chalking up excuses for them, to keep bad design in this game. But that's what those things are...bad design, always have, always will and there's 11 years of proof of it.

Now my whole thing, is based on math/science, not even off the basis of guild wars 1. Math/science actually proving WHY guild wars 1 was a successful game with an unrestrained combat system, and why guild wars 2 with a restrained combat system is not. Those mathematical proofs, are ingrained into just how those mechanisms work from a fundamental level, beyond things like just this game. If you've ever stopped to think how your computer works, the same principles that are applying there apply here. It's about permutations, combinations and those things, lead to highly diverse sets of things you can do. 

Edited July 2, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[ImProVision.5806]

I am very concerned about what they are planning to do, you want the main class and the following 3 elite specs to be able to use the same weapons?

My little story: Even before I decided to play revenant, my first exciting question was: which elite spec can get which new weapon. As a Greatsword fan, I decided to go with the Vindicator. But before I did that, I looked at herald and renegade.

Herald was much better organized in terms of utility skills, lets explain that this way Herald has real skills.

Now I hear, one wants to give the HERALD <-- the weapon he has always dreamed of...

OK question... what about the Vindicator? Everyone will switch to the herald like 99% of the community. What next? 18 Dec. fullowing patch: Finally, you gonna buff Vindicator to the KING of DPS, than it's to late.

Quote

You killed my main, it will never be the same again.

On what reasons do you want to carry out Weaponmaster balance?
- Does it do more good than harm?

What does the Beserker gain from being able to use a Dagger?
Nothing.

SO THIS IS VERY UNFAIR CONCERNING AS FAR AS THIS IS CALLED BALANCE.

THERE ARE ALREADY TOO STRONG CLASSES THAT FK'NG EVERYTHING WILL GET EVEN MORE. AND THE LOSER CLASSES WILL BE EVEN POORER THAN THEY ALREADY WERE.

Here are facts:

Revenant, the Herald will be so great that vindicator will no longer exist. (BOUGHT EOD FOR NOTHING, by the Way)

Warrior, no one will be able to do anything with the new weapons. Warriors are the only and should stay the only real "weaponmasters" anyway.

THE MOST DISGUSTING PART, MESMER AND GUARDIAN AND NECRO AND ALL THESE OVERPOWERED EXPLOITED WORN OUT CLASSES,
THEY GET EVEN MORE BONUS 🤢

GUARDIAN PISTOl, DOUBLE SWORD 😄 HJHAHAHAHAHA 🤮

VIRTUOSO SWORD 😄 AHHAHAHAHAHAH 🤮

THANKS for THE SUPER NICE GAME KILLING BALANCE!!!!

Edited July 2, 2023 by ImProVision.5806

[VocalThought.9835]

I like the idea of opening up the elite weapons,  but I don't like some of the weapons choose for next set of new weapons. I know some people do, but a lot of us like class immersion and practicality. It makes little sense that an Elementalist would use Pistols, Ranger would dual weld Maces, or Engineers would use a Short Bow, especially with all the other weapons choices that were available that's more fitting to the class. I know that weapons are just aesthetic, but ANet is pushing the bounds of believability. 

For Elementalist, instead of Pistol, why not main head Focus? Instead of Dual Mace Ranger, why not Rifle or Shield? Something most people were asking for. It seems like ANet just want to be nontraditional or appease everyone, at the expense of loosing people. 

Unless this next expansion is going to be like bizarre universe, where up is down, and green is now read, I don't get it. It's like they're purposely giving professions weapons you'd least expect. 

Edited July 3, 2023 by VocalThought.9835

[Manpag.6421]

I do think they’ll have to at least do a pass over e-spec weapon traits, which will effectively have one less minor trait than core specs otherwise, and will have to add or change weapon traits in core lines; I’d be surprised if they weren’t already planning that. All core weapons have a trait that boosts them, so the new weapons will need the same treatment. I agree that e-specs should still get the most synergy from their signature weapon, so an improvement trait should still be exclusive to them, but some existing effects (like Rev shortbow piercing) could be rolled into the standard weapon, with Renegade getting a new buff in its place.

I wonder if it’s time for more generic weapon improvement traits? They could make these as effectively specific or broad as they wanted, such as adding piercing on “two-handed ranged weapons” which then applies to shortbow, longbow, and rifle for most classes that use them, and covers them if classes that can’t currently use them get them in the future. Alternatively, giving elite specs traits that affect all core weapons where relevant, such as giving Specter a trait along the lines of “While not wielding a scepter, your weapon attacks apply torment”. And there’s always the Necro approach; have traits that add effects to specific slots, like the traits that modify “Shroud skill 1/4”. So you can have traits that synergise with specific builds, and can technically be done on any weapon set, but might be more useful at range/in melee, or pulse on some skills but not others.

[Leo G.4501]

On 7/1/2023 at 9:14 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Okay, If you're not already aware of what my stance is here, I'll just tell you straight up what it is right now. People use this word "homogenized" way to carelessly without knowing what it really means...like at all. I know, very deeply, about the subject, because I studied it academically, for four years, and like I stated on another thread, am largely responsible for bringing up this wording onto the forums...and if you were to check my comment history, I've talked about nothing else for those 4 years.

So now, I'm saying this directly: opening weapons is not a homogenization procedure...opening up options is in fact the only thing that is not a homogenization procedure, out of all the procedures I went through. I proved that mathematically a while ago now with an air-tight logic proof.

Now you can just believe me or just look through my comment history to see for yourself...but let me just leave you with an example/question.

Guild Wars 1 is near completely free-form in it's design. Do you think that game was ever at risk of being homogenous even though you had access to everyone else's weapons and skills? The answer is no, guild wars 1 was the opposite...it had a very diverse meta. The reason why, has everything to do, with the scientific definition that this word is embedded in, and when thrown around without that awareness, you lose meaningful ways to talk about the game.

I can completely understand why after seeing alacrity and quickness being homogenized, why you think opening weapons also means homogenization...but they simply are not the same procedure. The two procedures (opening combination, vs spreading what existing combinations do) exist in different mathematical spaces, and that is crucial to understanding homogenization as a problem...knowing what is an actual homogenization procedure and what isn't. Those things get proved by science and math not just loosy goosy gamer speak.

I say the above, with utmost respect man, so don't take it the wrong way. I'm asking you to just due your diligence because to people like me, who did their diligence (4 years of it) it's disrespectful. Treat the subject with some respect and know what you are talking about because people are WAY to easily swayed by BS flash mob campaigns rather than facts and logic. 

Well I think you're wrong and I'm not going to lean on an appeal to authority argument to tell you that.

And no, I've never played GW1. I have a different background in MMOs and their different balancing/expansion schema and how it affected their game throughout.

You seem to be stuck on the scientific definition of homogenization rather than the contextual definition which would have to take into account the current game, players, styles, etc rather than some sort of mathematical description. Yes, we can use arithmetic calculation to describe trends and predict outcomes but just like statistics, it's only a means to help portray reality on paper, not manifest it into existence. 

Looking back into THIS game, many changes occurred specifically to make specializations and elite specializations a feature in the game. This goes way back into needing to limit investment into 3 of 5 specs instead of piecemealing all 5 into one build, removal of stats from specs and so on. So now we're decoupling weapons from their elite specs so other elite specs can use those weapons too (no one cares that core can use these weapons, btw). What do you think is going to be the next trajectory of change to make more diverse builds work? They're probably going to buff some underperforming weapons and nerf some overperforming ones, likely change some stuff so weapons don't really shine on a particular build (espec) over others or something like that. Standard stuff... Changes are going to be made to bring outlier builds closer to the middle, most likely. They do this all the time with skill-floor abilities that are tough to use: they make them easier to use by removing drawbacks then when it overperforms, they lower its capabilities. You basically end up with a bunch of skills that are just reskins of other skills with similar capabilities as other skills and no niche-use builds or skills.

This is completely different from GW1 which, from what I heard, has hundreds of more skills...but GW2 only has 5 skills per mainhand+offhand (which only 16 + 3 aquatic exist) and about 5 or 6 per utility category which only 5 can be set at once. What I'm saying is, there aren't as many skills to tweek around with in GW2 compared to GW1 but if we start tweeking more and more skills to make them "usable" by diverse builds, you're likely going to end up with a lot of similar repeated stuff, moreso than we have now for the sake of spreading them to every spec. The meta is the meta, it's going to set on specific builds/weapons regardless, but this could end up in a lot of different results. We could end up playing a game where you've got so many great choices that all have super unique playstyles and gimmicks that work for various builds...or another possibility is they'll shave off most "undesired" aspects that made a weapon unique in favor of them being easier to balance and thus just another "click > do AoE damage", "click > lots of boons". The latter has been happening for years and I have no superstition that it's suddenly going to change with Weapon Master update. I would call this homogenization. Sure, you have more choices but either fewer of those choices will matter or you may believe you have more options but the reality will be you are supposed to use x skills for boon support, y skills for condi and z skills for sustain...much like it is now.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

You seem to be stuck on the scientific definition of homogenization rather than the contextual definition which would have to take into account the current game, players, styles, etc rather than some sort of mathematical description. Yes, we can use arithmetic calculation to describe trends and predict outcomes but just like statistics, it's only a means to help portray reality on paper, not manifest it into existence. 

Alright so let's start with this. The word homogenization is a scientific word...That's where it comes from and therefor it has baggage with how one talks about things, so that when you say it you are not making false statements.

Good example of this kind of baggage: If you said "Nuclear Physics is bad because of the atom bomb," You are generalizing "nuclear physics" to be only related to the fact that it was turned into a bomb...when nuclear physics is at the same time, the reason why our sun works and gave life to this planet in the first place. Saying "nuclear bad" is on the same level of carelessness on addressing the subject, as calling "everything gettin' homogenized" to procedures that are not homogenization procedures. What shows what is and is not a homogenization procedure is dictated BY the mathematics/scientific literature behind it.

So no i'm not hung up on it...it is critical in the discussion that everyone simply ignores because people didn't bother to do their diligence and research.

 

Quote

This is completely different from GW1 which, from what I heard, has hundreds of more skills...but GW2 only has 5 skills per mainhand+offhand (which only 16 + 3 aquatic exist) and about 5 or 6 per utility category which only 5 can be set at once. What I'm saying is, there aren't as many skills to tweek around with in GW2 compared to GW1 but if we start tweeking more and more skills to make them "usable" by diverse builds, you're likely going to end up with a lot of similar repeated stuff, moreso than we have now for the sake of spreading them to every spec. The meta is the meta, it's going to set on specific builds/weapons regardless, but this could end up in a lot of different results. We could end up playing a game where you've got so many great choices that all have super unique playstyles and gimmicks that work for various builds...or another possibility is they'll shave off most "undesired" aspects that made a weapon unique in favor of them being easier to balance and thus just another "click > do AoE damage", "click > lots of boons". The latter has been happening for years and I have no superstition that it's suddenly going to change with Weapon Master update. I would call this homogenization. Sure, you have more choices but either fewer of those choices will matter or you may believe you have more options but the reality will be you are supposed to use x skills for boon support, y skills for condi and z skills for sustain...much like it is now.

Ya, Guild Wars 1 had many many options, and they were for the most part all free form, where you picked two classes, and you had access to all of those classes skills. the design of Guild Wars 1 was based off of Magic the Gathering, which I won't go into, but generally the same ideas that apply to card games (creating uncountable number of possible decks from a massive number of cards) and it was this franchises most well known feature. It is this very reason, for why gw1 was successful and why we have a gw2 at all.

But moving away from gw1 and onto the second part of this quotation block, and just to quote this specifically: 

What I'm saying is, there aren't as many skills to tweek around with in GW2 compared to GW1 but if we start tweeking more and more skills to make them "usable" by diverse builds, you're likely going to end up with a lot of similar repeated stuff, moreso than we have now for the sake of spreading them to every spec.

The actual procedure of making the options similiar, is an actual homogenization problem, not the presentation of options that do different things...it is the act of making those different options do the same thing which is homogenization. Understanding why is related to math...and it's not hard to understand to see why...the more elements you add to a set of elements, the larger the space will be of possible combinations or permutations of those things. If I gave you two elements A and B, you can only combine them in only 2^2 (4) ways. If I gave you options A - Z you can combine them in...26^26 possible ways. You can imagine that if i homogenized all the symbols to be more and more like A, then that procedure homogenizes the options you made. The actual problem is not in the presentation of the options, it's the procedure of making similiar what the options do. in fact the presentation of options has the opposite effect...adding just a single element explodes the space of possible combinations (because it's exponential) and opportunities for solutions to arise as a result. Diversity always increases as a result of adding in options. Like alluded to, what the options do matters.

1000 options that all do the same exact thing, is only 1 real option

10 options that all do the same exact thing is only 1 real option.

what the options do...that is important. it is in fact CRITICAL that those options remain different and not "balanced out" in order to have a diverse game.

Quote

Looking back into THIS game, many changes occurred specifically to make specializations and elite specializations a feature in the game. This goes way back into needing to limit investment into 3 of 5 specs instead of piecemealing all 5 into one build, removal of stats from specs and so on. So now we're decoupling weapons from their elite specs so other elite specs can use those weapons too (no one cares that core can use these weapons, btw). What do you think is going to be the next trajectory of change to make more diverse builds work? They're probably going to buff some underperforming weapons and nerf some overperforming ones, likely change some stuff so weapons don't really shine on a particular build (espec) over others or something like that. Standard stuff... Changes are going to be made to bring outlier builds closer to the middle, most likely. They do this all the time with skill-floor abilities that are tough to use: they make them easier to use by removing drawbacks then when it overperforms, they lower its capabilities. You basically end up with a bunch of skills that are just reskins of other skills with similar capabilities as other skills and no niche-use builds or skills.

Like mentioned above, it is this exact thing, that is the homogenization problem...it is the act of trying to "balance" the skills which strips the game of it's diversity (no matter how many options there are btw). That is the homogenization problem...the one I refer to in the threads and comments I made about the topic dating back nearly 3-4 years ago now. This was the proverbial atom bomb Anet was constructing those years ago and boom, just like those homogenization procedures were destroying pvp, it arrived to PVE and it's only now that pve people are talking about it and concerned...But back then...everybody was like yay CMC let's nerf everything!

The opening of options, is the first sign of an actual shift to a non-homogenization procedure...even if they wind up screwing it up by squeezing the life out of the game with the overbalancing, the presentation of options is at least a start in a correct direction and not in the direction of  the cliff edge. The fact that people are resistant to it because of bad timing...well that's unfortunate.

Edited July 3, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Leo G.4501]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Like mentioned above, it is this exact thing, that is the homogenization problem...it is the act of trying to "balance" the skills which strips the game of it's diversity (no matter how many options there are btw). That is the homogenization problem...the one I refer to in the threads and comments I made about the topic dating back nearly 3-4 years ago now. This was the proverbial atom bomb Anet was constructing those years ago and boom, just like those homogenization procedures were destroying pvp, it arrived to PVE and it's only now that pve people are talking about it and concerned...But back then...everybody was like yay CMC let's nerf everything!

The opening of options, is the first sign of an actual shift to a non-homogenization procedure...even if they wind up screwing it up by squeezing the life out of the game with the overbalancing, the presentation of options is at least a start in a correct direction and not in the direction of  the cliff edge. The fact that people are resistant to it because of bad timing...well that's unfortunate.

Unnecessary explanations of probability and hypotheticals aside, I don't think we disagree then.  It's just you see it date back to 4 years ago and I think it started earlier than that.  It's just little parts of changes over time that has set up the issues of homogenization that are on the horizon. You also seem to feel this new Weapon Master thing will reverse homogenization or has the potential to?

I'm indifferent to the Weapon Master thing. It seems novel now, I'm certain, because that's what any effectiveness boost seems like off the bat. The problem comes when that effectiveness gets culled over time. An overt example I find is Elementalist Scepter, particularly Dragon's Tooth, currently a standard AoE that has had its damage culled after making it simpler to land.  That's not the only example, just one that really tuned me off of my main WvW roaming build. And it won't be the last as they make compromises for usability for weapons over builds they weren't initially designed for. 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 hours ago, Leo G.4501 said:

Unnecessary explanations of probability and hypotheticals aside, I don't think we disagree then.  It's just you see it date back to 4 years ago and I think it started earlier than that.  It's just little parts of changes over time that has set up the issues of homogenization that are on the horizon. You also seem to feel this new Weapon Master thing will reverse homogenization or has the potential to?

In a sense yes, things began earlier than 4 years ago, because I was describing that it's the process of balance in and of itself that squeezes the diversity out of the game, hence the title of the that thread : "Why Diversity is more important than Balance."

It wasn't until that thread though where someone (myself) began formalizing this problem mathematically/scientifically. Because with such a claim... that's the only way to make some kind of meaningful statements about the game.

Try to get the impact of what i was saying at the time. I was was saying that the process of balancing, in and of itself, was fundamentally flawed at it's core, a true paradox between these two concepts...that in order to get a perfectly balanced game, required stripping it of it's diversity. If I'm questioning the very nature of whether balance was achievable, then i was indeed questioning the whole balancing paradigm.

You asked me if I feel this new weapon master thing will reverse homogenization or has the potential to. The short answer is yes. But the accurate answer is, that it is only one step, of many that need to be taken. 

On all of the research I did, the only solution that did not yield to that paradox mentioned above, was the opening of options. How that works in detail, is a very deep rabbit hole, but once I got to the bottom of it, it made perfect sense. Homogeneity and heterogeneity are paradoxical like this, because they are two aspects of the same unified construct (a duality of sorts). A construct that can only be described as a "A system following rules over time." Systems evolve from heterogenous states to homogenous states or vice versa as a function of time, and this is how they are unified together (along the time axis, which preservers their isomorphism) The only way to prevent a system from collapsing to a homogenous meta game, is by making the time that collapse takes, to take longer. This is done through an increase in the number of steps the game takes through it's possibility space...so this operation is achieved by increasing the complexity/possibility space, which is achieved by adding to it's combinations and permutation size of it's elements, or by altering the rules, which themselves have the capacity to change the behavior of the complexity (which has yet to have a formal procedure).

The above is easier to visualize through just math... An addition problem like 10 + 15 - 3 takes a very short time to compute (3 steps). You come to the answer, and the "game" of solving this math problem is over. You can imagine a longer math problem...10+15-3+17+99-14-11-2+54+2+334-38...and the time it takes to solve this game, is longer than the first. You can imagine these "math games" where they aren't just simple addition and subtraction operations, but more complex operations...and this pushes the time it takes to solve.

But if your game problem is formally undecidable, like the halting problem for Turing machine, Rule 110, or true RPS...then the number of steps to solve that problem, take forever, even though the size of the problem (the number of options) is finite.

Therefore, the ideal solution to gw2 balance problem is to have mechanics which are not decidable. Because just as important as the number of options are, so to are the rules that govern the behavior of the game (if not more so). Undecidability is like buying infinity for free...and it's why true RPS is such a strong model for game design. Guild wars 2 unfortunately is not and can not ever be a true RPS. It can however be Turing universal (and therefor undecidable), by altering the mechanics to make sure they are following rules that lead to complex behaviors.

Worth mentioning: Magic the Gathering, the game Guild Wars 1 is based on is Turing universal and therefor formally undecidable. It has endless novelty. You can in fact program Magic The Gathering, to emulate a universal computer that could run guild wars 2. That's how omega brain this property of undecidability is and why it's given modern human technology so much kitten power in the past 30 years. 

So  to the question of do I think it has the potential...yes...beyond that... it is the only solution to the problem i have found to the paradox. However, talking about solutions is fine but...understanding the problem is a lot more inciteful. If what it takes is being cheerleader for additional options for now, I'll do that because it's not in the direction of the cliff edge.

Edited July 4, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[DeceiverX.8361]

On 7/1/2023 at 12:11 PM, Imperial.8471 said:

And since elite specializations are meant to be an improvement over core classes

FYI, this is untrue.  They're meant to not increase power but rather change gameplay, though obviously ANet messed that intent up pretty bad likely to sell more expansions lol.

But yes, almost everything will need to be reworked to make this entire concept *successful.*

It's a matter of waiting to watch them fail at this point though.  Enjoy the circus.  If you haven't been paying attention, they've been massively missing the mark all the way back since HoT when it comes to design and balance, especially in respects to the competitive modes.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but this is the lowest-effort way to re-sell existing content which is also why the price point is lower.

[draxynnic.3719]

15 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

In a sense yes, things began earlier than 4 years ago, because I was describing that it's the process of balance in and of itself that squeezes the diversity out of the game, hence the title of the that thread : "Why Diversity is more important than Balance."

It wasn't until that thread though where someone (myself) began formalizing this problem mathematically/scientifically. Because with such a claim... that's the only way to make some kind of meaningful statements about the game.

Try to get the impact of what i was saying at the time. I was was saying that the process of balancing, in and of itself, was fundamentally flawed at it's core, a true paradox between these two concepts...that in order to get a perfectly balanced game, required stripping it of it's diversity. If I'm questioning the very nature of whether balance was achievable, then i was indeed questioning the whole balancing paradigm.

You asked me if I feel this new weapon master thing will reverse homogenization or has the potential to. The short answer is yes. But the accurate answer is, that it is only one step, of many that need to be taken. 

On all of the research I did, the only solution that did not yield to that paradox mentioned above, was the opening of options. How that works in detail, is a very deep rabbit hole, but once I got to the bottom of it, it made perfect sense. Homogeneity and heterogeneity are paradoxical like this, because they are two aspects of the same unified construct (a duality of sorts). A construct that can only be described as a "A system following rules over time." Systems evolve from heterogenous states to homogenous states or vice versa as a function of time, and this is how they are unified together (along the time axis, which preservers their isomorphism) The only way to prevent a system from collapsing to a homogenous meta game, is by making the time that collapse takes, to take longer. This is done through an increase in the number of steps the game takes through it's possibility space...so this operation is achieved by increasing the complexity/possibility space, which is achieved by adding to it's combinations and permutation size of it's elements, or by altering the rules, which themselves have the capacity to change the behavior of the complexity (which has yet to have a formal procedure).

The above is easier to visualize through just math... An addition problem like 10 + 15 - 3 takes a very short time to compute (3 steps). You come to the answer, and the "game" of solving this math problem is over. You can imagine a longer math problem...10+15-3+17+99-14-11-2+54+2+334-38...and the time it takes to solve this game, is longer than the first. You can imagine these "math games" where they aren't just simple addition and subtraction operations, but more complex operations...and this pushes the time it takes to solve.

But if your game problem is formally undecidable, like the halting problem for Turing machine, Rule 110, or true RPS...then the number of steps to solve that problem, take forever, even though the size of the problem (the number of options) is finite.

Therefore, the ideal solution to gw2 balance problem is to have mechanics which are not decidable. Because just as important as the number of options are, so to are the rules that govern the behavior of the game (if not more so). Undecidability is like buying infinity for free...and it's why true RPS is such a strong model for game design. Guild wars 2 unfortunately is not and can not ever be a true RPS. It can however be Turing universal (and therefor undecidable), by altering the mechanics to make sure they are following rules that lead to complex behaviors.

Worth mentioning: Magic the Gathering, the game Guild Wars 1 is based on is Turing universal and therefor formally undecidable. It has endless novelty. You can in fact program Magic The Gathering, to emulate a universal computer that could run guild wars 2. That's how omega brain this property of undecidability is and why it's given modern human technology so much kitten power in the past 30 years. 

So  to the question of do I think it has the potential...yes...beyond that... it is the only solution to the problem i have found to the paradox. However, talking about solutions is fine but...understanding the problem is a lot more inciteful. If what it takes is being cheerleader for additional options for now, I'll do that because it's not in the direction of the cliff edge.

I think there is an argument by which opening up the weapons could cause the collapse to happen faster rather than slower, even if there are more options on paper.

The reason is that by breaking up buildcrafting into more, smaller decisions, the complexity of each decision is sometimes reduced. Let's say that hypothetically, you have two elite specialisations. One has good mechanics and traits for a particular role, but the weapon is less suited. The other has a really good weapon, but the mechanics and traits are a poorer fit for what you have in mind. (For simplicity, we'll ignore the core weapons, maybe there's either no core weapon that does the job, or the core weapons that do the job are already on the build but there's a space yet to be filled.) This can create a situation where a player has to weigh up a good weapon on a mediocre specialisation versus a good elite specialisation with a mediocre weapon, which might be a complex decision. Now, let's consider this scenario when the weapons are decoupled from the elite specs. In theory, there are now four choices - but instead of a complex choice between two alternatives, you just couple the good weapon with the good elite specialisation and ignore the other three.

From what I've seen on the forum, there are quite a few people who have already done that analysis, collapsing what had been a complex choice into a simple one, even if they weren't thinking of it in those terms.

There's also an argument whereby the change might not technically increase homogeneity, but it certainly might reduce diversity. Let's imagine, for instance, that instead of having one elite specialisation that is "good" and the other is "poor", they're both good enough in different ways to make it a complex choice between them... but one of them has an elite weapon that is clearly better at a particular role, even if not so much better that it's a major consideration in choosing between them. Previously, the other profession had to choose a different weapon, so the two elite specialisations would be using different weapon sets. With weaponmaster, though, you can put the same weapons on both elite specs. The elite specs are still different enough that choosing between them is still complex, but switching between them no longer means that you're changing your weaponset. I can think of at least a few profession/role matches where that's likely to happen: axe for condi guardians comes to mind.

Edited July 4, 2023 by draxynnic.3719

[Leo G.4501]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 I think you're not reading the room.

Firstly, I'll say you're not in university or having a study peer reviewed. It's mostly just a game forum where people share opinions or numbers of their in-game feats (or facilitating obtaining said numbers). You don't have to cite your sources unless we're talking about "x Anet dev tweeted this" or "the decrease in x game mechanic is proved by that". If you have to use unrelated jargon to make your point, you're not communicating well. Revise your method...just a friendly pointer there.

Secondly, I find your so-called solution laughable. It's laughable primarily because you're basically describing a bait-and-switch tactic that has been recognized in GW2 by the players for nearly a decade now. You're saying the quiet part out loud because we already know them mixing and changing the meta, adding features here and there to open options has been how the game draws in players. It also subsequently loses players too when players become disconnected with the direction of change. What took you 5 paragraphs to describe is already understood by players who have been through at least a few patches of an MMO. But what you seem to be ignoring is those that are expressing disagreement with an upcoming change and using a contextual definition of homogeneity are expressing their opinion not only on the current state of the game but future/potential iterations of it as well.

In conclusion, we're expressing opinions here and saying a bunk change is a bunk change is all people ask for. Suggesting better or alternate changes rather than just going with what feels good in the moment is also more beneficial than just saying "I told you so" 2 years down the line when certain builds are taking the bat for it. Most people don't want a fixed game 2+ years from now for "infinite novelty" or some such because people do have lives to live and have limited life at that. Making a game that is well thought out and put together before they get deployed overseas or after a rough time through college or with what time they have left after a diagnosis need not take into account infinity and it's foolish to attempt to chase it especially if you lose touch with the here and now or past events.

Aside, I will reiterate I am indifferent to the change. As I mentioned in other threads, the weapons introduced by the especs were balanced around the utility and uniqueness of the espec itself, meaning a lot of the weapons aren't that special while the espec is super different or vice versa. You're going to end up with highly unique especs using the highly specialized weapons that will then subsequently need to be corrected. If given the choice of the corrected weapons/especs but getting more options or limit options but keep the specialized weapons/espec interactions, I'd prefer the latter but I'm just a single player. 

Peace.

[Burnfall.9573]

On 7/1/2023 at 12:11 PM, Imperial.8471 said:

I think we all saw the many big problems of making elite specialization weapons into core ones during this beta.

Some weapons are designed to work with their respective espec mechanics and are useless without them. Holosmith's sword bound to the heat mechanic is the best example. Virtuoso's Dagger being a weak power weapon without Virtuoso's blade traits like Jagged Mind is an other. Bladesworn's pistol is useful only to trigger Bladesworn's Fierce as Fire and Guns and Glory traits and is otherwise a weaker off-hand axe

Some elite specializations need their weapon to work well, like Specter and Virtuoso. Without the scepter, Specter will struggle generating Shadow Force for its shroud without all the torment from scepter. And if you decide to generate the Shadow Force from Traversing Dusk support trait instead, guess what is the only support weapon Specter has ? Virtuoso on the other hand relies heavily on blade skills to cause bleeding and vulnerability and generate blade clones for its shatters, and beside a couple greatsword skills, only dagger skills are blade skills, making Virtuoso dependent on its dagger

Some weapons on the other hand are mostly if not completely independant from their elite specialization. Vindicator's greatsword has no trait or mechanic related to its espec, making it possible to use for power Herald and Renegade. Renegade's shortbow is the same (losing only piercing). Harbinger's pistol. Scourge's torch. And since elite specializations are meant to be an improvement over core classes, their weapons are usually improvement over core ones. Meaning every power Revenant will take greatsword, every condi Necromancer will take pistol/torch.

This is why, for Weaponmaster Training to be a good addition and not the death of gameplay and balance, all weapons, espec and core, need to be reworked
-Core weapons  need to be boosted (or elite ones nerfed ?) to be made equal to elite weapons, and must be made usable by elite specialization mechanics. To take the example of Holosmith's heat system, all weapons should get additionnal effect at higher heat level. Rifle could get one extra shot for auto attack (like pre nerf), Blunderbuss get extra range, Jump Shot get a blast finisher at landing. With if necessary for balance nerfs to the "cold" levels on Holosmith's weapon skills
-Elite specialization weapons need to be made into real core weapons, their associated traits brought into core trait lines, and be uncoupled from their espec mechanics. When I say uncoupled, I mean the Holosmith's sword can still have a heat system when used by Holosmith, but must also be usable by Scrapper and Mechanist and work with their own mechanics. Virtuoso's dagger already has an ambush attack on Mirage in the beta, now all it needs is a way to inflict conditions on Mirage without Jagged Mind

This also means that elite specializations need to be reworked into being independant from their weapons. As mentionned before, Holosmith should get heat tiers from all weapons. Virtuoso have bladed weapons (sword, axe) be blade skills as well. Specter should get Shadow Force from any condition and not only torment. Mirage and Weaver seem a good examples of this. Both have a mechanic deriving from their class instead of their weapons (Mirage Cloak and dual attunement), that is then translated into any weapon they use (Ambush and Dual Attack). Such a rework could keep the uniqueness of each specialization by their mechanics while opening them to many new options by a wider range of fitting weapons, which is Anet's declared goal behind the Weaponmaster training.

Of course, all of this is wishfull thinking. The balance patch showed Anet is incapable of balancing/reworking its classes without completely destroying them, and the beta showed no sign they will do more than just removing restrictions on weapons. But I guess one can have hope until the release crushes them...

Here is a Hitbox of Beta; Elementalist Profession 51k+ dps

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Burnfall.9573