Elemental Auras: Critique and Suggested Re-work

[Ragnar.4257]

31 minutes ago, Swagg.9236 said:

Things like Lava Font and Meteor Shower are definintely passive in nature after their casts resolve, but the respective differences between these two cases and auras (or personal buffs in general) is that Meteor Shower requires a legitimate time investment in order to deliver a worthwhile payout (far longer casting time than anybody else has to field, rooted casting and no free evasion period) and both of these things are also fixed AoEs; they don't travel around with a target like ranged attacks (or personal buffs with their users).  Players can use WASD to avoid hits from them.  Passive player buffs are often instantaneous and follow the user around, often reducing counterplay to a boring binary decision between "pile on more damage" or "stop attacking that guy."

 

Maul does feature an extremely passive effect.  The hit already went through, however, it just generates an extra hit (no user aim, timing or investment required) after the first one connects.

 

Stability is perhaps one of the worst boons for GW2, yes.  Being able to passively negate opponent effort or set-up with an (often instantly applied) buff is very destructive for dynamic PvP interaction.  If it boils all possibilities down to binary choices, then it's not good.  That's what stability does; turns combat into a flow chart:

- Target has stability?  ->  Can't use [all these moves]; possibly just time to run away.

- Target has no stability -> Spam CC while also layering on damage for easy wins.

 

Honestly, GW2 PvP is already a console quick-time event.  All you do is run around, watching a minimap that gives you all the information you will ever need; hunting for the easiest fight or interaction possible and then, once you find it, you literally just sit still while a point ticks into a different color or you spam everything on a vulnerable target (that's probably already fighting somebody else).  GW2's skill ceiling is INCREDIBLY LOW because it's combat is so homogenized and shallow.  If you want your game to evolve past a glorified quick-time event, then you'd rather have less passive, player buffs and more risk/investment for every attack.

Why don't you give an example of a skill / interaction that you would consider to be interactive, non-passive, or which cannot be boiled down a a simple flow-chart of binary choices. Doesn't even have to be from GW2.

 

Because I guarantee any example you give, I can reduce down to a binary choice of "If X do Y, else do Z", or I can choose to define it as "passive".

 

And if, coming off that example, you say "but no, it isn't a binary choice because opportunity cost, area-denial, mind-games, cooldowns, cast times, etc etc.", then I can say the exact same thing about auras.

 

It's very easy to whine about something being bad, its much harder to actually define what "good" would constitute. In a precise way with specific examples, not just vague fluffy "make it more betterer and less badderer".

Edited July 31, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[Swagg.9236]

24 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

Why don't you give an example of a skill / interaction that you would consider to be interactive, non-passive, or which cannot be boiled down a a simple flow-chart of binary choices.

 

Because I guarantee any example you give, I can reduce down to a binary choice of "If X do Y, else do Z", or I can choose to define it as "passive".

 

And if, coming off that example, you say "but no, it isn't a binary choice because opportunity cost, cooldowns, cast times, etc etc.", then I can say the exact same thing about auras.

Yeah, that's actually the hilarious thing about GW2, since there are no universal resource mechanics (and even the resource mechanics that do exist don't really promote any creative use of the skills they fuel) and all of the active abilities (along with most of the passive ones too) are all governed exclusively by cooldowns (because there are very, very few abilities in GW2 which actually take long enough to cast or put their caster in any sort of danger that they would warrant careful consideration of positioning and timing when activating), that most GW2 PvP interactions are binary and flow-chart in nature.  In PvP specifically, as I've already mentioned (and maybe you just didn't feel like recognizing or reading it), the issue comes down to the minimap basically giving away all relevant information that would otherwise have to be manually collected by players via team communication and gamesense.  Since each class or specialization generally only features one (MAYBE two) prominent/viable builds, the GW2 metagame has historically been very, very stale and homogenous:  combat generally trends toward the same paradigms, and all of the classes basically follow the same rules of engagement; the only things that have traditionally tipped the metagame have been patch notes.

 

In that light, because of the nature of GW2 PvP combat (propagated by how effectively all of its mainstream builds employ, instant or rapid-cast abilities that often pulse, leave residual effects on the field, simultaneously shield the user from incoming effects while attacking/healing, or feature effects which just follow players around automatically), combat engagements often come down to knowing one's best match-ups rather than just taking someone by surprise or being extra aggressive (OR EVEN JUST AIMING since everything is aimed for you in this game).  There is no reason to press advantages because GW2 PvP is very cyclical:  driven by cooldowns rather than engine-based movement, player prediction or mechanical skill, most combat is a waiting game:

- Is this a good match up for me?

Yes.  ->  Get into range / No. -> Run away/wait for ally

- If yes, are my best cooldowns up?

Yes. -> Engage / No. -> Literally just stand around like a clod (or go to an empty point that isn't my team color) until I can press my buttons again.

 

People complain about GW2 PvP matchups being "bad' because team comps are often comprised of "disparate skill levels," but it's more about the team compositions.  If people are just playing what they enjoy playing most, you are going to effectively create an RNG effect in GW2 PvP modes:  the game is binary in nature and the choices are driven by build match-ups rather than player expression.  I really just wanted to discuss auras being bland and boring, but you've forced me to dig down into the crux of GW2's design flaws:  there is no player expression because every effect which defines "good GW2 PvP" is very passive and reactive in nature.

 

You want to play the quick-time minigame and feel good about succeeding.  You don't actually want to try to win.  You'd rather have your abilities carry you with little effort.  Otherwise, you'd probably not be asking me to find an example of a creativity-driven interaction in GW2 PvP and instead just present one yourself.

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[Ragnar.4257]

7 minutes ago, Swagg.9236 said:

Yeah, that's actually the hilarious thing about GW2, since there are no universal resource mechanics (and even the resource mechanics that do exist don't really promote any creative use of the skills they fuel) and all of the active abilities (along with most of the passive ones too) are all governed exclusively by cooldowns (because there are very, very few abilities in GW2 which actually take long enough to cast or put their caster in any sort of danger that they would warrant careful consideration of positioning and timing when activating), that most GW2 PvP interactions are binary and flow-chart in nature.  In PvP specifically, as I've already mentioned (and maybe you just didn't feel like recognizing or reading it), the issue comes down to the minimap basically giving away all relevant information that would otherwise have to be manually collected by players via team communication and gamesense.  Since each class or specialization generally only features one (MAYBE two) prominent/viable builds, the GW2 metagame has historically been very, very stale and homogenous:  combat generally trends toward the same paradigms, and all of the classes basically follow the same rules of engagement; the only things that have traditionally tipped the metagame have been patch notes.

 

In that light, because of the nature of GW2 PvP combat (propagated by how effectively all of its mainstream builds employ, instant or rapid-cast abilities that often pulse, leave residual effects on the field, simultaneously shield the user from incoming effects while attacking/healing, or feature effects which just follow players around automatically), combat engagements often come down to knowing one's best match-ups rather than just taking someone by surprise or being extra aggressive (OR EVEN JUST AIMING since everything is aimed for you in this game).  There is no reason to press advantages because GW2 PvP is very cyclical:  driven by cooldowns rather than engine-based movement, player prediction or mechanical skill, most combat is a waiting game:

- Is this a good match up for me?

Yes.  ->  Get into range / No. -> Run away/wait for ally

- If yes, are my best cooldowns up?

Yes. -> Engage / No. -> Literally just stand around like a clod (or go to an empty point that isn't my team color) until I can press my buttons again.

 

People complain about GW2 PvP matchups being "bad' because team comps are often comprised of "disparate skill levels," but it's more about the team compositions.  If people are just playing what they enjoy playing most, you are going to effectively create an RNG effect in GW2 PvP modes:  the game is binary in nature and the choices are driven by build match-ups rather than player expression.  I really just wanted to discuss auras being bland and boring, but you've forced me to dig down into the crux of GW2's design flaws:  there is no player expression because every effect which defines "good GW2 PvP" is very passive and reactive in nature.

 

You want to play the quick-time minigame and feel good about succeeding.  You don't actually want to try to win.  You'd rather have your abilities carry you with little effort.  Otherwise, you'd probably also be asking me to find an example of a creativity-driven interaction in GW2 PvP rather than just presenting one yourself.

 

So, to clarify, you cannot provide an example of any skill/interaction, from any game, GW2 or otherwise, which meets your impossibly high standards. Got it.

 

Maybe you just don't like games. Worth considering.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[Dadnir.5038]

1 hour ago, Swagg.9236 said:

All the "urgent things" that people want changed in GW2 PvP ultimately just perpetuate the same cycle of boring interactions that rule your dying gamemode.  You never get more than number adjustments most days, and yet everybody always seems so obsessed or satisfied with doing no more than that.  You're convinced that the solution to making GW2 PvP into an engaging, creative experience is just to subtract a second here, add 2 seconds there, throw on some passive damage negation here, give that guy slightly less effective HP.  You'll never see a viable competitive PvP scene with that sort of trash management.  You aren't changing lanes at all, you're just varying the speed on the same old, gravel road.

 

It would be more accurate to say that I'm convinced that the 300s ICD traits need a rework more badly than auras that somehow still work thanks to their associated traits.

[Shao.7236]

2 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

It would be more accurate to say that I'm convinced that the 300s ICD traits need a rework more badly than auras that somehow still work thanks to their associated traits.

And I think their ICD should be reduced down to 120 seconds. Yes those traits were strong at 60 seconds, but I think the reason as to why they were strong is quite obvious. Is 120 seconds still too good? Then consider reworking them or increasing it one final time to 180 seconds.

 

I can get behind the idea that something saving your life automatically is a crutch, but Warrior per say has Endure Pain that only triggers at the threshold while Balanced Stance is at any given CC, not like it'll be useful.

 

The real issue came from the fact that it wasn't Lesser at the same cooldown from the actual skill.

 

There's other traits like Final Shielding that's rather mediocre and undeserving of such nerf, it's only 3 blocks. 120 seconds is plenty. Instant Reflexes? I'd make that one 180 seconds, not out of hate but Thieves are slippery enough in one game, there shouldn't be something like that saving them often.

[Swagg.9236]

4 hours ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

So, to clarify, you cannot provide an example of any skill/interaction, from any game, GW2 or otherwise, which meets your impossibly high standards. Got it.

 

Maybe you just don't like games. Worth considering.

I actually really enjoy games, which is why it's so sad to see this one wasted like it is.

Also, I ended up reading over the "not even from GW2" part, so I'm sorry about that.  If you give me that parameter, I'd probably just skip straight to Team Fortress 2.  That's a game in which gamesense, coordination and timing are the key to set up victory, but when it comes down to execution, there is a lot of individual playmaking and improvisation.  However, at the same time, it's very possible to go into a game with some kind of  "meme loadout" but still manage to carry or rack up a pile of bodies throughout a match (even in competitive pugs with examples like Sticky Jumper rollouts).  TF2 is a game with simple, defined roles and weapon kits for its classes, and yet it features a skill ceiling high enough to allow individual player expression to shine.

 

As for a single example, it could be as basic as a soldier doing a bomb.  Soldier has to jump up really high or go really fast toward a target.  In doing so, he consumes health (or wears gunboats which denies him a secondary weapon--strong tradeoff rather than a direct upgrade like most things are in GW2), which means he either needs cooperation with a medic or just runs in knowing that he'll have less health to spend taking hits while trying to get a kill.  While in mid-air--if spotted--that's the big interaction:  if somebody sees a bombing soldier, a whole bunch of things can start happening independent of each other:

- Enemies on the ground can start shooting the soldier

- Soldier in the air can start air-strafing to avoid fire or just to break off the bomb

- Potential, vulnerable enemies on the ground can look up and get ready to time a jump when the soldier attacks in order to surf a rocket explosion

 

It instantly and naturally creates this whole scenario without worrying about cooldowns or class match-ups:  everybody has something to do regardless of their class, and surprises can happen all the time--from air-shots to big surfs to some random dude walking out of nowhere to finish the soldier unexpectedly right before he gets off the final rocket to kill something of high value.  However, the factor that determines all of this beyond just the lack of cooldowns is that these actions are telegraphed to a degree and in-game movement can provide an out or advantage in most any situation because of that timeframe.

 

Basically, what it comes down to is the relationship between attacks and player movement speed.  If a player can reliably use WASD to avoid incoming damage by just syncing up prediction with inputs, then the game provides a lot of room for player creativity to blossom.  GW2's problem is that most damage comes instantly, features tie-in teleports, pulses in AoEs the size of objective nodes, and often flies out of players that flicker between invulnerable and out of reach.  There needs to be a risk when attacking; none of this "teleport to target" or "evade/block while moving/attacking" garbage.  GW2 insulates players from risk and basically neuters movement to a cosmetic gimmick in PvP.  Nobody uses WASD to avoid damage or get from point A to B quickly; that's why Thief is a side-noder/roamer and not core mesmer:  it's not about how good you are at moving; it's about how many teleports and scripted movement skills your class gets.  Player creativity and skill in GW2 is trapped in a straightjacket sewn from scripted movement and built-in, passive damage negation on skills that otherwise would be risky to attempt.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[Swagg.9236]

3 hours ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

It would be more accurate to say that I'm convinced that the 300s ICD traits need a rework more badly than auras that somehow still work thanks to their associated traits.

GW2 functions perfectly fine without--what is it--like, 10 random traits that are just annoying, passive procs??  Even if they were re-worked, what would you have them be?  Traits--since they're already the most passive aspect of a build by nature--won't fix the main issue discussed in this thread.  The game already has loads of "good" builds that function fine without those traits.  That means that they were bloat to begin with.  Better off focusing someplace else worthwhile.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

10 hours ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

What are you talking about?

 

You're defining any kind of buff as passive?

 

If you're going to be so loose with the definition of "passive" that anything that does not require constant button-mashing constitutes "passive", then you can extend this definition to any buff, de-buff, or channeled skill, or even any non-instant skill.

 

Buffs like "deal +10% damage" or "take -20% condition damage" is a passive effect. The application of that effect might be active, where one has to click the skill in order to get the buff...or even do a series of actions (setting up a field and blasting that field like aura's), but the buff itself requires no input or agency from the user.

 

Meteor Shower for example is a passive effect. It takes an action to use the skill, but once you use it, you literally can go to sleep and pay no attention to the game while it's effect occurs (dealing damage in an AOE for 5 seconds or whatever it is.)

 

Now does it depend a little on how you granulize passive and active? sure. How long does one need to "leave the computer" in order for the effect to no longer be considered passive but active...imo it's nuanced.

 

A good example of the nuance is the following:

 

Example 1:

Skill A deals X damage. If the attack hits a foe with a barrier, the attack hits for 50% more damage.

 

In many respects, this skill seems pretty active, because it requires player agency at the activation of the skill, and the activation of the skill takes the same amount of time as it's effect (they both happen at activation)...however it's effect is rather passive...because it's a flat 50% damage buff. Consider it's alternate reality version:

 

Example 2:

Skill A deals X damage. If the attack hits a foe with a barrier, gain access to Skill B. If the attack hits a foe without a barrier, gain access to skill C.

 

This skill...sounds pretty simple but it's a much more rich...and complex skill. it both is an active skill and has an active effect, because the effect requires further player agency even after the usage of the skill.

 

So in conclusion, In example 1, that might sound like a well-designed skill for you, while in my view, I would see a skill like Example 2 as a better designed skill than example 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Ragnar.4257]

26 minutes ago, Swagg.9236 said:

I actually really enjoy games, which is why it's so sad to see this one wasted like it is.

Also, I ended up reading over the "not even from GW2" part, so I'm sorry about that.  If you give me that parameter, I'd probably just skip straight to Team Fortress 2.  That's a game in which gamesense, coordination and timing are the key to set up victory, but when it comes down to execution, there is a lot of individual playmaking and improvisation.  However, at the same time, it's very possible to go into a game with some kind of  "meme loadout" but still manage to carry or rack up a pile of bodies throughout a match (even in competitive pugs with examples like Sticky Jumper rollouts).  TF2 is a game with simple, defined roles and weapon kits for its classes, and yet it features a skill ceiling high enough to allow individual player expression to shine.

 

As for a single example, it could be as basic as a soldier doing a bomb.  Soldier has to jump up really high or go really fast toward a target.  In doing so, he consumes health (or wears gunboats which denies him a secondary weapon--strong tradeoff rather than a direct upgrade like most things are in GW2), which means he either needs cooperation with a medic or just runs in knowing that he'll have less health to spend taking hits while trying to get a kill.  While in mid-air--if spotted--that's the big interaction:  if somebody sees a bombing soldier, a whole bunch of things can start happening independent of each other:

- Enemies on the ground can start shooting the soldier

- Soldier in the air can start air-strafing to avoid fire or just to break off the bomb

- Potential, vulnerable enemies on the ground can look up and get ready to time a jump when the soldier attacks in order to surf a rocket explosion

 

It instantly and naturally creates this whole scenario without worrying about cooldowns or class match-ups:  everybody has something to do regardless of their class, and surprises can happen all the time--from air-shots to big surfs to some random dude walking out of nowhere to finish the soldier unexpectedly right before he gets off the final rocket to kill something of high value.  However, the factor that determines all of this beyond just the lack of cooldowns is that these actions are telegraphed to a degree and in-game movement can provide an out or advantage in most any situation because of that timeframe.

 

Basically, what it comes down to is the relationship between attacks and player movement speed.  If a player can reliably use WASD to avoid incoming damage by just syncing up prediction with inputs, then the game provides a lot of room for player creativity to blossom.  GW2's problem is that most damage comes instantly, features tie-in teleports, pulses in AoEs the size of objective nodes, and often flies out of players that flicker between invulnerable and out of reach.  There needs to be a risk when attacking; none of this "teleport to target" or "evade/block while moving/attacking" garbage.  GW2 insulates players from risk and basically neuters movement to a cosmetic gimmick in PvP.  Nobody uses WASD to avoid damage or get from point A to B quickly; that's why Thief is a side-noder/roamer and not core mesmer:  it's not about how good you are at moving; it's about how many teleports and scripted movement skills your class gets.  Player creativity and skill in GW2 is trapped in a straightjacket sewn from scripted movement and built-in, passive damage negation on skills that otherwise would be risky to attempt.

The exact same situation as soldier-bombing exists in GW2.

 

You've got a player doing something that would normally be suicidal or at least highly dangerous, but able to do it because they've got a support pocketing them. Then the other team has to decide whether to prioritise the threat, or push the support, or back off.

 

Why is that different to a core-support-guard pocketing a zerker-rev or a reaper or w/e?

 

You're comparing the strategy of an entire team to a single skill, which is obviously ridiculously skewed.

[Genesis.5169]

12 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Buffs like "deal +10% damage" or "take -20% condition damage" is a passive effect. The application of that effect might be active, where one has to click the skill in order to get the buff...or even do a series of actions (setting up a field and blasting that field like aura's), but the buff itself requires no input or agency from the user.

 

Meteor Shower for example is a passive effect. It takes an action to use the skill, but once you use it, you literally can go to sleep and pay no attention to the game while it's effect occurs (dealing damage in an AOE for 5 seconds or whatever it is.)

 

Now does it depend a little on how you granulize passive and active? sure. How long does one need to "leave the computer" in order for the effect to no longer be considered passive but active...imo it's nuanced.

 

A good example of the nuance is the following:

 

Example 1:

Skill A deals X damage. If the attack hits a foe with a barrier, the attack hits for 50% more damage.

 

In many respects, this skill seems pretty active, because it requires player agency at the activation of the skill, and the activation of the skill takes the same amount of time as it's effect (they both happen at activation)...however it's effect is rather passive...because it's a flat 50% damage buff. Consider it's alternate reality version:

 

Example 2:

Skill A deals X damage. If the attack hits a foe with a barrier, gain access to Skill B. If the attack hits a foe without a barrier, gain access to skill C.

 

This skill...sounds pretty simple but it's a much more rich...and complex skill. it both is an active skill and has an active effect, because the effect requires further player agency even after the usage of the skill.

 

So in conclusion, In example 1, that might sound like a well-designed skill for you, while in my view, I would see a skill like Example 2 as a better designed skill than example 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Combo fields and using them are one of the most unique and coolest things about guild wars 2, aura's are an extension of that system, aura's are actively used because you must active use an combo finisher in a field to activate its effect, they always require 2 moves.

 

Where all of your examples are one move.

Your posts are riddled with contradictions you think you understand complex game mechanics but you don't.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

11 minutes ago, Genesis.5169 said:

 

Combo fields and using them are one of the most unique and coolest things about guild wars 2, aura's are an extension of that system, aura's are actively used because you must active use an combo finisher in a field to activate its effect, they always require 2 moves.

 

Where all of your examples are one move.

Your posts are riddled with contradictions you think you understand complex game mechanics but you don't.

Combo Fields -> Blasting them is a good example of a well designed active mechanic. The example I gave implies this (I actually explicitly stated this)

 

In the same token Auars-> Transmuting them is also a well designed mechanic.
 

Aura effects on the other hand are not…again my post clearly states this I think you should read the comment again.

Edited July 31, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Swagg.9236]

18 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

The exact same situation as soldier-bombing exists in GW2.

 

You've got a player doing something that would normally be suicidal or at least highly dangerous, but able to do it because they've got a support pocketing them. Then the other team has to decide whether to prioritise the threat, or push the support, or back off.

 

Why is that different to a core-support-guard pocketing a zerker-rev or a reaper or w/e?

 

You're comparing the strategy of an entire team to a single skill, which is obviously ridiculously skewed.

Soldier doesn't magically press a button to double his HP.  Nobody in GW2 will attack if they know that they're going to outright die.  That's the difference.  TF2 features fast-paced sacrifice plays for higher value targets.  In GW2, everyone is basically the same value since combat and movement are so generic and homogenized.  GW2 may feature focused attacks on certain targets, but combat is always artificially lengthened by instant/passive defenses and protracted damage negation or instantaneous health generation.  In TF2, a fully-buffed enemy team can be brought low by a single soldier bomb in exchange for that soldier's life; in GW2, nobody is going to do much alone to anybody in a quick amount of time because everybody in PvP plays with built-in or instant defenses that outright negate opponent inputs.

 

To be frank, most soldier bombs are sacrifice plays.  To willingly go super far away from a medic and directly into the heart of an enemy team (even if you got a buff prior to leaving) is knowing that it's a one-way trip.  GW2 is always obsessed with get-out-of-jail-free buttons whenever bad things happen (or just artificially prolonging combat by making one's own HP bar freeze in place or go up instantly).  And you kind of need to be in the latter mindset with GW2 because movement is so worthless in PvP.  If you don't have a button to make all damage on you just turn to 0 or just to teleport/walk out of a bad situation, you're going to die (since WASD doesn't consistently do anything of high value in GW2 PvP).

Edited July 31, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[Ragnar.4257]

34 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Buffs like "deal +10% damage" or "take -20% condition damage" is a passive effect. The application of that effect might be active, where one has to click the skill in order to get the buff...or even do a series of actions (setting up a field and blasting that field like aura's), but the buff itself requires no input or agency from the user.

 

Meteor Shower for example is a passive effect. It takes an action to use the skill, but once you use it, you literally can go to sleep and pay no attention to the game while it's effect occurs (dealing damage in an AOE for 5 seconds or whatever it is.)

 

Now does it depend a little on how you granulize passive and active? sure. How long does one need to "leave the computer" in order for the effect to no longer be considered passive but active...imo it's nuanced.

 

A good example of the nuance is the following:

 

Example 1:

Skill A deals X damage. If the attack hits a foe with a barrier, the attack hits for 50% more damage.

 

In many respects, this skill seems pretty active, because it requires player agency at the activation of the skill, and the activation of the skill takes the same amount of time as it's effect (they both happen at activation)...however it's effect is rather passive...because it's a flat 50% damage buff. Consider it's alternate reality version:

 

Example 2:

Skill A deals X damage. If the attack hits a foe with a barrier, gain access to Skill B. If the attack hits a foe without a barrier, gain access to skill C.

 

This skill...sounds pretty simple but it's a much more rich...and complex skill. it both is an active skill and has an active effect, because the effect requires further player agency even after the usage of the skill.

 

So in conclusion, In example 1, that might sound like a well-designed skill for you, while in my view, I would see a skill like Example 2 as a better designed skill than example 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, I don't dis-like your example 2, but it doesn't seem to be fundamentally better than example 1. Does example 2 give the attacking player more choices, or require greater thought about what to do when? No, not really.

 

Example 1: Do I A) hit target without barrier to do damage immediately or B) wait until target has barrier to do more damage

Example 2: Do I A) hit target without barrier to get skill C, or B) wait until target has barrier to get skill B

 

Does it require greater awareness, reactions, or introduce more choices for the defending player?

 

Example 1: Do I A) use my barrier and risk being punished for it (as in, do I have the dodges to avoid this skill if I see enemy use it) or B) wait to use my barrier until enemy is no longer able to use that skill 

Example 2: Do I A) use my barrier and enable enemy to use skill B or B) wait to use my barrier and enable enemy to use skill C

[Ragnar.4257]

31 minutes ago, Swagg.9236 said:

Soldier doesn't magically press a button to double his HP.  Nobody in GW2 will attack if they know that they're going to outright die.  That's the difference.  TF2 features fast-paced sacrifice plays for higher value targets.  In GW2, everyone is basically the same value since combat and movement are so generic and homogenized.  GW2 may feature focused attacks on certain targets, but combat is always artificially lengthened by instant/passive defenses and protracted damage negation or instantaneous health generation.  In TF2, a fully-buffed enemy team can be brought low by a single soldier bomb in exchange for that soldier's life; in GW2, nobody is going to do much alone to anybody in a quick amount of time because everybody in PvP plays with built-in or instant defenses that outright negate opponent inputs.

 

To be frank, most soldier bombs are sacrifice plays.  To willingly go super far away from a medic and directly into the heart of an enemy team (even if you got a buff prior to leaving) is knowing that it's a one-way trip.  GW2 is always obsessed with get-out-of-jail-free buttons whenever bad things happen (or just artificially prolonging combat by making one's own HP bar freeze in place or go up instantly).  And you kind of need to be in the latter mindset with GW2 because movement is so worthless in PvP.  If you don't have a button to make all damage on you just turn to 0 or just to teleport/walk out of a bad situation, you're going to die (since WASD doesn't consistently do anything of high value in GW2 PvP).

I don't disagree with what you've said there, but, the difference between sacrifice being a viable strategy in TF2 and it not being viable in GW2 has got nothing to do with how passive/active the skills are. It's about the time-to-kill and damage/HP ratio, the way the maps and objectives are designed, downstates, etc etc.

 

Also, I don't know how you conclude that movement and mobility are worthless in GW2. Thief has been kept in the meta despite its sub-par fighting ability entirely due to its mobility. The difference between a necro or a rev that can kite and move well vs one that can't is enormous. Spacing and positioning yourself to deny enemy skills, get the most out of your own, is all really important. Standing still on the node can work in silver, but GL with that in a tournament.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[Swagg.9236]

5 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

It's about the time-to-kill and damage/HP ratio, the way the maps and objectives are designed, downstates, etc etc.

Yes, but GW2 caters to players in a way that makes all of those interactions artificial (often protracted far longer than they would normally be).  There is no extra layer of instant/passive triggers or buttons in a soldier bomb:  either you surf the damage, you scare him away, or you kill the guy after he lands (or you die).  If TF2 played like GW2, the party getting bombed would just stand still and press a button to absorb the first 2-3 rockets before the soldier felt like either pressing his own special button to instant reload 4 more rockets or maybe just rocket jump away for free while negating all incoming damage (in the end, the game state wouldn't really change much--which kind of calls into question why anybody did anything at all).  That's GW2's issue:  it's super passive and reactive; everyone is waiting for other people to make a move half of the time, and those who make moves generally only do so because they know that they can get away with whatever they're about to try without dying.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

16 hours ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

I mean, I don't dis-like your example 2, but it doesn't seem to be fundamentally better than example 1. Does example 2 give the attacking player more choices, or require greater thought about what to do when? No, not really.

 

Example 1: Do I A) hit target without barrier to do damage immediately or B) wait until target has barrier to do more damage

Example 2: Do I A) hit target without barrier to get skill C, or B) wait until target has barrier to get skill B

 

Does it require greater awareness, reactions, or introduce more choices for the defending player?

 

Example 1: Do I A) use my barrier and risk being punished for it (as in, do I have the dodges to avoid this skill if I see enemy use it) or B) wait to use my barrier until enemy is no longer able to use that skill 

Example 2: Do I A) use my barrier and enable enemy to use skill B or B) wait to use my barrier and enable enemy to use skill C

 

I think that, regardless of what the examples actually do(do they give more or less choices...i don't think they necessarily have to abide by that), the point is more so about player agency... is the brain actively participating in the decision making process or is the skill "playing the game" so to speak for the user.

 

You point out in both examples, that they have active components that require the users input, and this setup for the example was intentional.

 

Example 1: Do I A) hit target without barrier to do damage immediately or B) wait until target has barrier to do more damage

Example 2: Do I A) hit target without barrier to get skill C, or B) wait until target has barrier to get skill B

 

The key difference between Example 1 and Example 2, is that example 2's effect requires further input from the user, where in example 1, the input stops at "the first step." Both skills do damage X...but one skill simply does 50% more damage, and once you provide the input for when you decide to use the skill, that's where the agency ends. The other skill also does damage x but the agency hasn't stopped for it's effect...because you have yet to use Skill B or Skill C....so the agency hasn't stopped yet for this player.

 

Now like we mentioned before...it is subject to nuance because you can granulize it... like asking "when does the buck stop" for agency. I think intuitively we believe there should be a buck that stops eventually. We can't have an endless chain of skills like example 2...or can we? I actually do not think it is out of the realm of possibility to have skills designed in these kind decision loops.

 

Example 2:

Skill A deals X damage. If the attack hits a foe with a barrier, gain access to Skill B. If the attack hits a foe without a barrier, gain access to skill C.

 

Skill B heals you. If you have less health than your foe, gain access to skill D. If you have more health than your foe, gain access to Skill A.

 

Skill C stuns both you and the opponent. If you have 3 boons, gain access to skill E. If you have less than 3 boons, gain access to skill A.

 

Skill D... eventually loops back to one of the previous skills

Skill E...(is a stunbreak)....eventually loops back to one of the previous skills

 

The example above sounds a little bit familiar...it's basically Weaver, but a bit more simplified and altered for the example...Weaver as a class I think is universally considered to be the most complex classes to play, that involves the agency of the player at nearly all times. What ends up ruining weaver in an ironic twist? (no pun intended)...Passive skills like Stone Resonance and Primordial Stance and conditions (which are inherently passive effect mechanics.)

 

Lastly, I think Swagg is pointing out something a bit more fundamental here, and its the notion of how risk introduces player agency. So just like how the example above introduces agency by simply elongating the effect of it's skills to more active components or continuous loops of them, tradeoffs is another way, and arguably a better way to do the same thing. to use a heavy referenced quote: For every action there should be an equal and opposite reaction... If every attack or buff also gave you an equivalent debuff or punishment somewhere else, you'd be more aware of it's presence and you introduce agency in this way...forcing the user to always think about their buffs and attacks. This also solves the problem of inconsequentialness, where so long as an attack or buff has a relatively equivalent trade off or debuff the attack can have impact because it will come with a consequence. (Think if Frenzy from Guild Wars 1)
 

both symptoms (inconsequentialness and passive gameplay) seem to manifest in the game because of lack of consequences inherent in the games skill design…and I think the game has always suffered from those symptoms.

Edited August 1, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Dadnir.5038]

9 hours ago, Swagg.9236 said:

GW2 functions perfectly fine without--what is it--like, 10 random traits that are just annoying, passive procs??  Even if they were re-worked, what would you have them be?  Traits--since they're already the most passive aspect of a build by nature--won't fix the main issue discussed in this thread.  The game already has loads of "good" builds that function fine without those traits.  That means that they were bloat to begin with.  Better off focusing someplace else worthwhile.

 

And the game work perfectly fine with 6-7 aura with weak passive annoying proc... Auras are also pretty much passive in nature after all. And the game have also load of build that fonction perfectly fine without aura.

 

The point is that I think freeing some traitline from those traits that the sPvP community worked so hard to smiter's boon is more important than focusing on aura that already work "well" in the current game. Those traits are purely PvP trait and need to be addressed because it mean that some professions like elementalist and warrior (3 traits with 300s ICD) fondamentally have less defensive options to choose from than, let's say, a necromancer or an engineer (no trait with 300s ICD).

 

Now, if you're enjoyment as a part of the sPvP community is to break traits and mechanisms. Go on, focus on breaking the currently "not so bad" auras, so that the sPvP mode can rot a bit more than it already is.

 

On another hand, if you want the best for the sPvP mode, maybe trying to fix the past mistakes is way more important than breaking more stuff.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

6 minutes ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

And the game work perfectly fine with 6-7 aura with weak passive annoying proc... Auras are also pretty much passive in nature after all. And the game have also load of build that fonction perfectly fine without aura.

 

The point is that I think freeing some traitline from those traits that the sPvP community worked so hard to smiter's boon is more important than focusing on aura that already work "well" in the current game. Those traits are purely PvP trait and need to be addressed because it mean that some professions like elementalist and warrior (3 traits with 300s ICD) fondamentally have less defensive options to choose from than, let's say, a necromancer or an engineer (no trait with 300s ICD).

 

Now, if you're enjoyment as a part of the sPvP community is to break traits and mechanisms. Go on, focus on breaking the currently "not so bad" auras, so that the sPvP mode can rot a bit more than it already is.

 

On another hand, if you want the best for the sPvP mode, maybe trying to fix the past mistakes is way more important than breaking more stuff.

You’re misunderstanding the OP. The criticism about auras, is an underlying criticism of the games design as a whole. 
 

Auras are benign in that they are mostly inconsequential, and he points this out…that because of the lack of player agency in the passivity of very linear buffs, skills are designed to be inconsequential since they have no drawbacks. Auras are a good place to start when talking about this criticism. 
 

The point you are making about focusing on other problems is a straw man. It’s like saying that climate change is not an important topic because there are more important things to deal with in the world like world hunger. Sure…there are problems of all kinds that exist in the game and I’m sure the OP is aware of that (and so am I) The problem being  put into question here however is  much more underlying… that essentially cascaded into where we are today as a result. Not even specifically auras, but the passive nature of all skills as a whole. 

[Dadnir.5038]

48 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

You’re misunderstanding the OP. The criticism about auras, is an underlying criticism of the games design as a whole. 
 

Auras are benign in that they are mostly inconsequential, and he points this out…that because of the lack of player agency in the passivity of very linear buffs, skills are designed to be inconsequential since they have no drawbacks. Auras are a good place to start when talking about this criticism. 
 

The point you are making about focusing on other problems is a straw man. It’s like saying that climate change is not an important topic because there are more important things to deal with in the world like world hunger. Sure…there are problems of all kinds that exist in the game and I’m sure the OP is aware of that (and so am I) The problem being  put into question here however is  much more underlying… that essentially cascaded into where we are today as a result. Not even specifically auras, but the passive nature of all skills as a whole. 

 

My point is that fixing what have been broken take priority over breaking things that are yet to be broken. Comparing this to climate change and world hunger is a bit exagerated.

 

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, Dadnir.5038 said:

 

My point is that fixing what have been broken take priority over breaking things that are yet to be broken.

Yes, and your point is a strawman. It's a diversion of the topic. We aren't talking about scourge...we aren't talking about 300s traits that Anet ruined...we are talking about aura's and their passive effects.

 

If you want to go and talk about scourge, or Endure pain being 300seconds...go and make another thread about that. Here, we are talking about the passive nature of aura's, and by proxy the passive nature of other skills, and how it induces a certain kind of player behavior (more like non-behaviour) 

[Quadox.7834]

On 7/31/2021 at 4:19 PM, Swagg.9236 said:

You used to be able to do a weird sort of bunny-hop for momentum boosting way back during the early game betas.  Anet removed it because it could cause desyncing with bad connections, but the way that they did it basically made it way more sluggish to wiggle around in mid-air, and it also made you fall a lot faster than the game's earlier builds.  Consequentially, it also radically increased fall damage and led to weird instances where going down (certain kinds of) staircases too quickly could outright kill you from fall damage.

Ok that's a shame, I didnt play during that, however I do remember when it was possible to double jump. You did it by pressing auto-stow-dodgejump-swap weapons, if I recall correctly. This one I wish they had kept in the game, it was really fun and not broken afaik.

 

It was also possible for a while to do a dodge attack, by pressing stow-skill-dodge, if I remember correctly. This allowed you to channel any skill while dodge rolling. It looked pretty cool.

[Swagg.9236]

2 hours ago, Quadox.7834 said:

Ok that's a shame, I didnt play during that, however I do remember when it was possible to double jump. You did it by pressing auto-stow-dodgejump-swap weapons, if I recall correctly. This one I wish they had kept in the game, it was really fun and not broken afaik.

 

It was also possible for a while to do a dodge attack, by pressing stow-skill-dodge, if I remember correctly. This allowed you to channel any skill while dodge rolling. It looked pretty cool.

Yeah, over GW2's lifetime, anet has continuously removed or crippled any sort of movement or z-axis related tech in the game.  Whether it be more complicated changes like adjusting engine-level values to make strafing in mid-air functionally impossible to simple things like removing player ability to use certain moves in mid-air (no more bungee-jump Necromancers--WHICH WAS SUPER UNIQUE--or using Ride the Lightning mid-air to boost travel distance on the fly).  Movement is probably the best way for players to express themselves in a game, and anet has been solidly committed to stripping away that expression and creativity whenever it gets a little too salient.  At this point, any sort of cool WASD tech or movement is trapped exclusively within PvE-only gimmicks.  It makes PvP into what it is today:  hopelessly addicted to builds with built-in scripts that move avatars at the press of a button rather than anybody having to do any manual inputs for split-second jukes or jumps.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[Quadox.7834]

1 hour ago, Swagg.9236 said:

Yeah, over GW2's lifetime, anet has continuously removed or crippled any sort of movement or z-axis related tech in the game.  Whether it be more complicated changes like adjusting engine-level values to make strafing in mid-air functionally impossible to simple things like removing player ability to use certain moves in mid-air (no more bungee-jump Necromancers--WHICH WAS SUPER UNIQUE--or using Ride the Lightning mid-air to boost travel distance on the fly).  Movement is probably the best way for players to express themselves in a game, and anet has been solidly committed to stripping away that expression and creativity whenever it gets a little too salient.  At this point, any sort of cool WASD tech or movement is trapped exclusively within PvE-only gimmicks.  It makes PvP into what it is today:  hopelessly addicted to builds with built-in scripts that move avatars at the press of a button rather than anybody having to do any manual inputs for split-second jukes or jumps.

I think it was largely because they used to care alot about which areas could be reached, especially stuff like wvw, mapbreaking, and jumping puzzles. they used to consider anything unintentional "immersion breaking". during the first years of the game, they used to rework pvp maps multiple times to remove jumping spots and map breaks.

 

somewhere around 2015 they stopped caring about this, maybe because they realised pvp map breaks rarely help in actual combat. you can still break every pvp map with jumps. when mounts were added to core tyria they obviously fully gave up on this, since now you can jump super far/high in pve anyway. i feel like if that double jump bug was dicovered today they may not have bothered to fix it.

 

another tech they should have kept was angling the camera to get shorter leaps.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Quadox.7834

[Swagg.9236]

1 hour ago, Quadox.7834 said:

I think it was largely because they used to care alot about which areas could be reached, especially stuff like wvw, mapbreaking, and jumping puzzles. they used to consider anything unintentional "immersion breaking". during the first years of the game, they used to rework pvp maps multiple times to remove jumping spots and map breaks.

 

somewhere around 2015 they stopped caring about this, maybe because they realised pvp map breaks rarely help in actual combat. you can still break every pvp map with jumps. when mounts were added to core tyria they obviously fully gave up on this, since now you can jump super far/high in pve anyway. i feel like if that double jump bug was dicovered today they may not have bothered to fix it.

 

another tech they should have kept was angling the camera to get shorter leaps.

Yeah, they went way too hard on policing what they thought was their perfect image of the game that they had made, and instead of adding any long-term, replayable content, they just went on anti-fun patrol for the first couple of years; randomly adding invisible walls or removing consumable items from use in certain places.  I think this is the problem with MMORPG development in general (at the very least, it's a terrible and pervasive mentality at anet):  developer perceptions are far too rigid, and nothing is spared when it comes to bringing things into line with the "right way" to play "their game."

 

For instance, if anet had developed Quake, we would probably never have had rocket jumping.  The only reason rocket jumping ever existed in the first place was because ID developers found it while playing around with the raw pieces of their engine and assets; and at that early point in development, they decided to incorporate that unintended effect into their baseline gameplay.  The way GW2 turned out over its lifespan is a testament to Anet's development style:  they clearly never do a lot of in-depth play or experimentation with their engine and assets in a way which brings their potential to the surface.  They are far more concerned with superficial appearance and flavor rather than innovative gameplay.  That's why not only did anet have a whole bunch of "bugs" that players found and started using after the game launched (since anet devs never play their own game enough to know that these things exist at all), but they went on an retroactive crusade against them; plucking them out of the engine one-by-one with haphazard updates whenever players would start using them consistently.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Swagg.9236

[Swagg.9236]

Changed the title and bumped because of a re-focus onto elemental auras with an expansion on other related effects like traits, utilities and other sources.  Auras are still pretty gross in general, and their impact on the field shouldn't be entirely dependent on players reducing themselves to mindless beat-sticks.