Trait system rework, what IMO is needed to avoid stagnation.

[anduriell.6280]

Really short:

• Actual system is easy to learn but very limited choices and very difficult to balance around.
• New system is based in a free trait selection system based in points which are distributed in traits.Example:
• Each player gets 30 points to distribute
• Each minor trait cost 1 point, adept 2 points, master costs 3 points, grand master 5 points.
• Specialisations minors (the first one which gives access to the new weapon and skills) are exclusive one of each other (so only one spec can be equiped)
• players can combine the traits however they choose.
• There is a limit of 18 traits which can be equipped at any time.

Now we have total flexibility and the dev team have a new variable to use at their advantage: if trait is too strong but can not be nerfed in a significant way because it would lose all the meaning , as an example Sand Savant, they may increase the cost of the trait, so an scourge which decides to equip Sand Savant will have less effective traits combinations so it should be potentially weaker in other area. Still the player can play however he\she\it chooses even if it means sacrifice other in aspects.

This could make some players would preffer to equip up to 6 grandmaster traits instead go for type of traits. Or not to choose any grand master and use more masters.

I know this change would make balance very changeling at first because of the new possible variations, but now the system allows better flexibility to make easier such balances. Some traits could be balanced just changing the ICD or the effect other would be enough to make them more expensive or cheap.

And players would have almost infinite possibilities to try out. We all win on the long run.

[Ayrilana.1396]

I see this system being worse to balance than the current one.

[derd.6413]

sounds like a more difficult to balance version of the old trait system

[IndigoSundown.5419]

In order to equip a current build's 3 spec lines, one would need: 3 GM traits (15 points); 3 Master Traits (9 points); 3 Adept traits (6 points) and 9 Minor traits (9 points). That's 39 points, not 30. Is that meant as a trade-off to partially compensate for the opportunity costs lost by allowing more freedom of choice?

Regardless, restricting players to 3 spec lines is the primary means of enforcing opportunity costs. There are already too many builds which include big damage, sustain, defense and mobility. I can't see the OP's proposal resulting in less of that. Since I'd prefer more opportunity cost rather than less, my initial reaction is, "No, thanks."

I also question whether the existing trait system -- while not perfect -- is "good enough." After all, sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[Dahkeus.8243]

Sounds a lot like the old trait system, except you had 70 points to distribute instead of 30. I'm guessing OP either didn't play back when the game released or is trolling us.

[Orion Templar.4589]

Only difference being the old system tied attributes into the trait lines as well which wasn't good. For example if you liked a trait that was in the healing power line but you didn't want to spend points on healing power, you were out of luck.

[Face Eater.6179]

This wouldnt change anything.people would still figure out which trait combinations produce the best results and then proceed to only use those, ignoring all others.
There will always be cookie cutter builds, regardless of how much freedom players have to build their characters they will gravitate towards builds that are the most effective.

[anduriell.6280]

@Dahkeus.8243 said:Sounds a lot like the old trait system, except you had 70 points to distribute instead of 30. I'm guessing OP either didn't play back when the game released or is trolling us.I used to play then and is not the same. You still were limited with the trait lines so you didn't have real freedom.

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:In order to equip a current build's 3 spec lines, one would need: 3 GM traits (15 points); 3 Master Traits (9 points); 3 Adept traits (6 points) and 9 Minor traits (9 points). That's 39 points, not 30. Is that meant as a trade-off to partially compensate for the opportunity costs lost by allowing more freedom of choice?

Regardless, restricting players to 3 spec lines is the primary means of enforcing opportunity costs. There are already too many builds which include big damage, sustain, defense and mobility. I can't see the OP's proposal resulting in less of that. Since I'd prefer more opportunity cost rather than less, my initial reaction is, "No, thanks."

I also question whether the existing trait system -- while not perfect -- is "good enough." After all, sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.

I didn't think too much about the math. We can have X points and each skill may cost A, B or C points.The point is not the distribution itself but the idea of having complete freedom to mount your build however you like.It is true the min/maxers will always look for the most perfect combination but right now with the extremely simplistic 3 traitlines system is really easy to determine that.

Having complete freedom of choice would make to reach that point more difficult because now you have almost infinite number of combinations possible(~2.588.713.818.544.245). And that not taking into account the stat sets and runes.

This could be explored even further removing some traits which have become baseline to the classes and make them minors as well. I don't mean this proposition is perfect just that the one we have now is too simple to allow theorycarfting and build exploration which for me is a very important part of an MMORPG.

[LucianDK.8615]

Bad idea. Better to keep it simple with more meaningful choices, instead of a thousand little bits. The deeper talent system in WoW got removed for the same reason with the simpler talent choices. Which this is alike.

Much easier to keep track off and adjust when you need a trait flipped without needing a degree in math.

Fluidity is good as we have it now, excessive complexity is not and fluidity gets lost.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Truly, no matter how long it takes for a(some) player(s) to figure out, it will be posted, and from then on others will copy it.Just like in Guild Wars (which the Devs stated was a real problem to balance).

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@anduriell.6280 said:

@"Dahkeus.8243" said:Sounds a lot like the old trait system, except you had 70 points to distribute instead of 30. I'm guessing OP either didn't play back when the game released or is trolling us.I used to play then and is not the same. You still were limited with the trait lines so you didn't have real freedom.

And ANet swapped to the current in part because the old system was harder to balance. If as you insist that the new system gives more freedom, then it would be harder still to balance. The more permutations are permitted, the more interactions ANet has to watch out for. And no matter how clever they are, Snowcrows (and less public groups) have more time to devote to figuring out ways of extracting the biggest benefits.

Even if that wasn't true, there are two other reasons this isn't a "win win" as proposed. First, of course more combinations feels like more freedom (as it did to some people in GW2), but it makes it easier to create bad builds. In GW1, it happened often that people would use a traitline that didn't support the skillbar (or vice versa). That's no big deal for build theorists; it is a big deal for people who don't think the interactions all the way through (which is common in all games, not just this one).

Second, part of what makes build theory interesting is working around the restrictions. For me, it requires more creativity than allow me to mix & match everything. I also like the concept of trait lines, thematically linked abilities that are suppose to work together. I do accept that it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's an uphill battle to convince ANet otherwise. It's not enough to say "more freedom to adjust is better," without explaining how it makes the game better for everyone.

[Obtena.7952]

Changing the trait system isn't related to easy or hard to balance (the first overhaul was related to making it easier for players, not balance). It's related to how it affects GW2 as a business for Anet. I won't present a whole bunch of points that stubborn people will argue with. I will just say that it's probably an overall negative effect on their business to overhaul the trait system again.

Currently, we have no shortage of 'possibilities' to play with and getting more isn't necessarily make it better for players. As Anet continues to add elite specs, the possibilities increase, so that's a poor reason to change how traits work.

[Leo G.4501]

@"LucianDK.8615" said:Bad idea. Better to keep it simple with more meaningful choices, instead of a thousand little bits. The deeper talent system in WoW got removed for the same reason with the simpler talent choices. Which this is alike.

Much easier to keep track off and adjust when you need a trait flipped without needing a degree in math.

Fluidity is good as we have it now, excessive complexity is not and fluidity gets lost.

Agreed. Most players didn't like the new trait system at all when we swapped over but I was indifferent. I started to like the traits a bit better when they made some of the Grandmaster's worth something. There are still GMs that aren't worth crap but it was worse back then. People would just avoid GM traits most of the time and just double up on the lower tiers.

OP, your idea is to reverse-balance the impact of an ability with its cost. The current system is simply the opposite. While your idea might give you a semblance of build freedom, it's merely a phantasm where useless builds masquerade as viable alternatives when in reality, you introduce more "meta" builds that make other builds less viable. Soon, trait usefulness will be tied to combining them with other traits and it's less a cost per trait and more a cost per build.