Add more runes and amulets without any profession in mind.

Crab Fear.1624 · May 9, 2020

You need to look at how you add runes and amulets.

Stop adding profession specific runes.

Someone said imagine if a rune like trapper runes, but a rune of signet user....

gain stealth, super speed on signet use...lol

Add runes with cool effects and good bonuses that can benefit everyone and make creative builds.

Don't remove univeral parts....like sigil of lightining...sigil of flame...

Remove rune of speed, remove rune of trapper.....

If every class can't use it, it is bad.

How many people use runes that focus on glyphs?

How many classes use those?

Yeah...exactly...

What is a rune that only thief can use?

Doesn't exist...

So why should a rune that only class x, y ,z can use and not a?

Now, here is a chance for players to add suggestions for runes and amulets.

Please dont think of your class when you ask for it.

Avatar.3568 · May 9, 2020

I think it's good to have some runes that works with specific classes, I like the Trapper rune

But I want rune of ogre back

Sigmoid.7082 · May 9, 2020

If you try to make something good for everyone it likely ends up good for nobody and is inherently boring.

Different strengths and weaknesses and boosts to strengths / covers to weaknesses or even build defining choices are found in runes and they will effect each class differently.

Can you please stop complaining that other classes can do things yours can't or they have advantages or opportunities that they can take advantage of that yours can. It goes both ways in the grand scheme of things.

Leonidrex.5649 · May 9, 2020

Crab fear -> remove runes and amuletsalso crab fear -> add runes and amulets

Tayga.3192 · May 9, 2020

@Leonidrex.5649 said:Crab fear -> remove runes and amuletsalso crab fear -> add runes and amulets

The duality of man

Aktium.9506 · May 9, 2020

@Avatar.3568 said:But I want rune of ogre backYou have low aspirations. Why not pre-nerf Pirate runes from when they used the actual ranger bird pet stats and health for the summoned bird and it had something like a 5-6k unit aggro leash range. You could be triple wielding birds.

Avatar.3568 · May 9, 2020

@Aktium.9506 said:
@Avatar.3568 said:But I want rune of ogre backYou have low aspirations. Why not pre-nerf Pirate runes from when they used the actual ranger bird pet stats and health for the summoned bird and it had something like a 5-6k unit aggro leash range. You could be
triple wielding
birds.

Rocko doggo

Aktium.9506 · May 9, 2020

@Avatar.3568 said:
@Aktium.9506 said:
@Avatar.3568 said:But I want rune of ogre backYou have low aspirations. Why not pre-nerf Pirate runes from when they used the actual ranger bird pet stats and health for the summoned bird and it had something like a 5-6k unit aggro leash range. You could be
triple wielding
birds.

Rocko doggo

deathparrot

Swagg.9236 · May 9, 2020

You really need to cull, compress and homogenize weapons and utility skills to a degree in order to make any substantial number of passive, gear-stat bonuses which would align well with every class in GW2 that don't all just end up being yet another Rune of the Traveler. If anything, having a more compressed skill type pool would create more skill type overlap in combat, and thus more potential mechanical interaction. For instance, if a bunch of the classes all used Physical skills and Glyph skills, then you could make some runes, traits or active abilities which could interact in certain ways with these skills. Instead, everyone has their own special snowflake skill types which have effectively zero interaction with every other class and skill type in the game.

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · May 10, 2020

@Swagg.9236 said:You really need to cull, compress and homogenize weapons and utility skills to a degree in order to make any substantial number of passive, gear-stat bonuses which would align well with every class in GW2 that don't all just end up being yet another Rune of the Traveler. If anything, having a more compressed skill type pool would create more skill type overlap in combat, and thus more potential mechanical interaction. For instance, if a bunch of the classes all used Physical skills and Glyph skills, then you could make some runes, traits or active abilities which could interact in certain ways with these skills. Instead, everyone has their own special snowflake skill types which have effectively zero interaction with every other class and skill type in the game.

Ya. This is why I personally don’t like the majority of runes in the game, because they are too specialized.

Thing is that the more homogenous the rune, like sigmoid points out makes them more boring. Scholar runes is a great example of the more universally applicable runes that literally doesn’t do anything but give you some more damage.

That’s why I lean more towards diversifying the runes, but making each one universally applicable, and making sure each rune does something unique. Altruism is a good example of a rune that does something unique but is also universally applicable. Same with antitoxin. They create a huge variety of different build possibilities without exclusivity.

This philosophy can be applied to not just runes but everything in the game...being unique but also providing enough usefulness to make sure players can make builds with them. Traits, weapons, and utilities...everything can benefit from this sort of game design philosophy.

Swagg.9236 · May 10, 2020

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@"Swagg.9236" said:You really need to cull, compress and homogenize weapons and utility skills to a degree in order to make any substantial number of passive, gear-stat bonuses which would align well with every class in GW2 that don't all just end up being yet another Rune of the Traveler. If anything, having a more compressed skill type pool would create more skill type overlap in combat, and thus more potential mechanical interaction. For instance, if a bunch of the classes all used Physical skills and Glyph skills, then you could make some runes, traits or active abilities which could interact in certain ways with these skills. Instead, everyone has their own special snowflake skill types which have effectively zero interaction with every other class and skill type in the game.

Ya. This is why I personally don’t like the majority of runes in the game, because they are too specialized.

Thing is that the more homogenous the rune, like sigmoid points out makes them more boring. Scholar runes is a great example of the more universally applicable runes that literally doesn’t do anything but give you some more damage.

That’s why I lean more towards diversifying the runes, but making each one universally applicable, and making sure each rune does something unique. Altruism is a good example of a rune that does something unique but is also universally applicable. Same with antitoxin. They create a huge variety of different build possibilities without exclusivity.

This philosophy can be applied to not just runes but everything in the game...being unique but also providing enough usefulness to make sure players can make builds with them. Traits, weapons, and utilities...everything can benefit from this sort of game design philosophy.

The only issue that you could develop by hyper-diversifying rather than striking a balance among overlapping skill types utilized by all classes is that in the former's case, any sort of "overpowered" aspect would be an extreme stand-out rather than being a burden shared among the entire class base to some degree. If everything rune were super niche, then the one which is super, super strong or outright overpowered stands out far too well and, more importantly, cannot be countered by any sort of in-game mechanic or technique (since nothing overlaps). This is why people complain about things like Rune of the Trapper: nobody can counter it consistently, and only a fraction of the builds in the game can use it. If everybody could use Rune of the Trapper (which would be awful; let's never do that), at least everyone would sort of be able to anticipate enemy strategies to some degree and build toward counters which could still be versatile and applicable in situations outside of "gotta hard counter the one invisible dude laying traps everywhere."

Basically, by maxing the "rune diversity" scale, you're just going to make dozens of Runes of the Trapper; whereas, if you try to find a balance between max homogeneity and max specificity, you generally end up with a lot of unique interactions which have to be discovered and utilized creatively in a case by case basis. This is sort of the foundation behind the magic of things like IWAY teams, EoE bombs and SWAY in Guild Wars: all three of these were teams used niche abilities in order to exploit the game in a way which nobody had done before despite the fact that basically everybody had access to most of those niche, build-defining skills for months and months before the teams emerged in the meta. Most importantly, perhaps, when some aspects of those builds became too oppressive to balanced comps, they were easy to nerf (SWAY, for instance, was basically obliterated by a single, subtle change to Escape that had really no effect at all on the rest of the game or even Ranger's effectiveness as a class).

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · May 10, 2020

@"Swagg.9236" said:The only issue that you could develop by hyper-diversifying rather than striking a balance among overlapping skill types utilized by all classes is that in the former's case, any sort of "overpowered" aspect would be an extreme stand-out rather than being a burden shared among the entire class base to some degree. If everything rune were super niche, then the one which is super, super strong or outright overpowered stands out far too well and, more importantly, cannot be countered by any sort of in-game mechanic or technique (since nothing overlaps). This is why people complain about things like Rune of the Trapper: nobody can counter it consistently, and only a fraction of the builds in the game can use it. If everybody could use Rune of the Trapper (which would be awful; let's never do that), at least everyone would sort of be able to anticipate enemy strategies to some degree and build toward counters which could still be versatile and applicable in situations outside of "gotta hard counter the one invisible dude laying traps everywhere."
Basically, by maxing the "rune diversity" scale, you're just going to make dozens of Runes of the Trapper; whereas, if you try to find a balance between max homogeneity and max specificity, you generally end up with a lot of unique interactions which have to be discovered and utilized creatively in a case by case basis. This is sort of the foundation behind the magic of things like IWAY teams, EoE bombs and SWAY in Guild Wars: all three of these were teams used niche abilities in order to exploit the game in a way which nobody had done before despite the fact that basically everybody had access to most of those niche, build-defining skills for months and months before the teams emerged in the meta. Most importantly, perhaps, when some aspects of those builds became too oppressive to balanced comps, they were easy to nerf (SWAY, for instance, was basically obliterated by a single, subtle change to Escape that had really no effect at all on the rest of the game or even Ranger's effectiveness as a class).

Right. I actually don't disagree with you at all and i agree with everything you are saying. Although i want to just make it clear that homogeneity and specificity aren't on the same spectrum. You can have a homogeneous effect pool filled with specific mechanics and likewise you can have a diverse effect pool filled with specific mechanics.

The two things that are on the same spectrum is Homogeneity and heterogeneity... standardization vs. uniqueness.

So what i want, isn't multiple runes of the trapper like runes.

It's the idea that having Rune A give you a 5% damage bonus if you are a ranger, and Rune B giving you 5% damage bonus if you are a warrior, is a bad thing. This is both a homogeneous and specific configuration, which is kinda what we currently have in the game...and this is bad.

What we want instead is Rune A gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here" and Rune B gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here." Both runes can be used by both classes, so it's non specific, and both are heterogeneous because they are unique.

Sigmoid.7082 · May 10, 2020

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:What we want instead is Rune A gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here" and Rune B gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here." Both runes can be used by both classes, so it's non specific, and both are heterogeneous because they are unique.

The problem with this is that the effect of the runes will naturally be stronger on some classes than others, not really escaping the apparent problem, and / or the effects would have to be naturally weaker since they are so non-specific. Because they would have to be so much weaker they become boring, an after thought, and likely not build defining like some runes we have now. I also don't see that much of a difference between "insert awesome interesting mechanic here" to what we have now.

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · May 10, 2020

@Sigmoid.7082 said:
@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:What we want instead is Rune A gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here" and Rune B gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here." Both runes can be used by both classes, so it's non specific, and both are heterogeneous because they are unique.

The problem with this is that the effect of the runes will naturally be stronger on some classes than others, not really escaping the apparent problem,

But it’s not a problem. In the grand scheme, all classes will find some builds they will find useful through the selection of runes, and they will compete with one another to the point in which there will always be some sort of counterplay to any other play because there will be so many, much like the compositions in gw1. The intention was never to make them equal. Making them equal is an inherently impossible task, and the only way to do such a thing is by homogenization.

Because they would have to be so much weaker they become boring, an after thought, and likely not build defining like some runes we have now.

You are thinking of homogenization, that is what makes skills boring. Uniqueness is basically the opposite of boring so I don’t see why you would assume that just because something is unique it has to be weak? There is no correlation there.

Sigmoid.7082 · May 10, 2020

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@Sigmoid.7082 said:
@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:What we want instead is Rune A gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here" and Rune B gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here." Both runes can be used by both classes, so it's non specific, and both are heterogeneous because they are unique.

The problem with this is that the effect of the runes will naturally be stronger on some classes than others, not really escaping the apparent problem,

But it’s not a problem. In the grand scheme, all classes will find some builds they will find useful through the selection of runes, and they will compete with one another to the point in which there will always be some sort of counterplay to any other play because there will be so many, much like the compositions in gw1. The intention was never to make them equal. Making them equal is an inherently impossible task, and the only way to do such a thing is by homogenization.

Because they would have to be so much weaker they become boring, an after thought, and likely not build defining like some runes we have now.

You are thinking of homogenization, that is what makes skills boring. Uniqueness is basically the opposite of boring so I don’t see why you would assume that just because something is unique it has to be weak? There is no correlation there.

Then its really no different to it is now.

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · May 10, 2020

@Sigmoid.7082 said:
@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@Sigmoid.7082 said:
@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:What we want instead is Rune A gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here" and Rune B gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here." Both runes can be used by both classes, so it's non specific, and both are heterogeneous because they are unique.

The problem with this is that the effect of the runes will naturally be stronger on some classes than others, not really escaping the apparent problem,

But it’s not a problem. In the grand scheme, all classes will find some builds they will find useful through the selection of runes, and they will compete with one another to the point in which there will always be some sort of counterplay to any other play because there will be so many, much like the compositions in gw1. The intention was never to make them equal. Making them equal is an inherently impossible task, and the only way to do such a thing is by homogenization.

Because they would have to be so much weaker they become boring, an after thought, and likely not build defining like some runes we have now.

You are thinking of homogenization, that is what makes skills boring. Uniqueness is basically the opposite of boring so I don’t see why you would assume that just because something is unique it has to be weak? There is no correlation there.

Then its really no different to it is now.

I think youre just having trouble distinguishing the differences, there are differences, and that’s crucial to the discussion. I suggest rereading the comments

What we have in game right now is a mixture. In fact the runes we have right now from the past aren’t all that bad. It’s just that some of the current runes are way too specialized for specific classes and/or aren’t unique enough.

For example, a good rune is Rune of the Warrior. This rune reduces weapon swap time by 20%. This is a unique effect that is applicable to all classes.

Compare this to Rune of the Scholar. It provides a 5% damage boost. This is a homogenous effect (because there are like 30 runes that provide a percent damage boost) that is also applicable to all classes.

Now compare this to Rune of the Trapper. It provides stealth every time you use a trap skill. This is a unique effect applicable to maybe 2 of the 9 classes. And of these 2 classes, only a fraction of build configurations can take advantage of them.

Given the above, what we want are more runes like Rune of the Warrior. More runes that are unique (unlike Scholars) and less specialized (unlike Of The Trapper)

In addition to the above, Runes with unique mechanics should actually be strong enough to have a real impact on the build design or play-style. This is why Antitoxin, Altruism, and Warrior runes and runes like them add a richer level of complexity to build design choices to all classes, and the game has gotten better for that implementation.

Once upon a time, the runes were way way worse than they are now, where nearly every rune did the same thing, and some runes did nothing in comparison to other runes...

With last years rune and sigil update, we actually saw a greater increase in diversity (since they added more unique effects to runes in general) with each rune falling Into one of the three categories above. So they were indeed in the right path. They just have to finish what they started, because it’s those other two categories that are really stymying the balance of the other runes.

Burnfall.9573 · May 10, 2020

@Crab Fear.1624 said:You need to look at how you add runes and amulets.
Stop adding profession specific runes.
Someone said imagine if a rune like trapper runes, but a rune of signet user....
gain stealth, super speed on signet use...lol
Add runes with cool effects and good bonuses that can benefit everyone and make creative builds.
Don't remove univeral parts....like sigil of lightining...sigil of flame...
Remove rune of speed, remove rune of trapper.....
If every class can't use it, it is bad.
How many people use runes that focus on glyphs?
How many classes use those?
Yeah...exactly...
What is a rune that only thief can use?
Doesn't exist...
So why should a rune that only class x, y ,z can use and not a?
Now, here is a chance for players to add suggestions for runes and amulets.
Please dont think of your class when you ask for it.

I remember the insult, humiliation and degrading experience to the Mesmer Profession players including myself when Rune of Perplexity was added and was openly shared with all Profession

this is why i propose for all Profession runes and their sigils to be returned to their dedicated specific Professions--Rune of Perplexity>Mesmer Profession to reinforce Profession roles and identifying their identities.

+1

Crab Fear, I fully support your proposal

Sigmoid.7082 · May 10, 2020

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@Sigmoid.7082 said:
@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@Sigmoid.7082 said:
@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:What we want instead is Rune A gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here" and Rune B gives you "insert awesome interesting mechanic here." Both runes can be used by both classes, so it's non specific, and both are heterogeneous because they are unique.